Forced Carries . . . the New Cop Bunkers?

[DMoriarty]

Like cop bunkers, they are rarely in play for the quality golfer . . . yet it is often this quality golfer who strongly favors them.  

Like cop bunkers, they take their satisfaction out on the duffer, trebling the dire damage done by the weakly struck ball.

Like cop bunkers, they (further) boost the quality golfer's ego by making the quality golfer's mundane shot appear glorious while at the same time knocking the duffer back where he/she belongs.  

[Matt_Ward]

 

 

[DMoriarty]

Sorry for your tears matt . . . sometimes one has to face the truth, no matter how painful . . .

(this is a joke matt so dont bother giving me a 5 paragraph retort about your skills and abilities as a rater and/or golfer)

But seriously, while you are here, how about some True or False?  

True or False:  Forced carries are rarely in play for quality golfers such as yourself.

True or False:  Quality golfers such as yourself often sing the praises of forced carries.  

True or False:  Forced Carries amplify the difference between a duffer and a quality golfer such as yourself by frequently and severely punishing the hack, while only punishing the quality golfer such as yourself on extremely rare occassions.  

True of False:  Quality golfers such as yourself get a big thrill out of hitting over a large precipice even when there is little change of failing to make the carry.  


answers at the back of the book . . .

[Matt_Ward]

David ... David ... David ...

Got to say your desire to be T-H-E advocate of Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass is noble and utterly predictable.

I say it's time all bunkers be moved to 300 yards dead center in the fairway -- allow Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass the freedom from such cruel fates.

No more   for them ...

 

[SPDB]

David -
In this great leveling, will all forced carries be eliminated?
(i can't wait to vote tomorrow!)

[DMoriarty]

Sean and Matt,

Guys, I neither called for bunkers at 300 yds; nor called for the elimination of all forced carries.   I am interested in exploring this topic; you guys apparently are not.  I've had enough of Halloween, so rather than reply to your hobgoblins, I think I'll continue to wait for a thoughtful response.

[SPDB]

David,
I wasn't being sarcastic. I think the analogy is a bit flawed in that carrying cop or top-shot bunkers don't do anything to boost the ego, and as far as forced carries are concerned, they are relatively undemanding. I don't know who all of these low handicappers are who are advocating for cop bunker inclusion, but I don't imagine they do so out of concerns for preserving their ego.

If a cross bunker at 265 is (or was?) meant to challenge the longer more experienced player, why shouldn't the higher handicap face a similar obstacle relative to his playing ability. Perhaps the top-shot bunker was a great leveling device.

I do, however, share (what i imagine is) your distate for excessive or onerous forced carries repeated on a golf course.

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

I dont think that phrase "cop bunker" is used in contemporary design, is it?  Regardless, I was (and am) referring to the period prior to (or early in) the "golden age."    

Did "cop bunkers" exist to boost the ego of the better players?   I cant say for sure.  But it is my understanding that "cop bunkers" were utilized in early designs by excellent players turned designers (such early professionals, for example) in an attempt to increase the differentiation between better players and hacks.   Seems like a bit of ego might have been involved to me.  

A pop culture example . . . After being eliminated from the World Series of Poker no limit texas hold'em, a very arrogant and outspoken pop-poker icon (Bill Helmuth?) was caught on tape saying something like "If it weren't for luck I'd win every hand."  Perhaps some of these old designers viewed golf the same way, only they tried to do something about it.    

I cant find my copy of Spirit of St. Andrews right now, but seem to recall MacKenzie has some interesting things to say on the topic of cop-type bunkers (although I dont recall whether he used that term.)

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

In this thread you use two examples, 1/ the "quality golfer" and 2/ the "duffer". You talk about the delight the quality golfer shows with forced carries that really don't concern his play and you talk about the duffer who struggles and suffers with forced carries. You refer to these forced carries as the "new cop bunkers".

But you must remember neither the quality golfer nor the duffer plans or designs golf courses, owners and architects do, and in my experience they generally plan and design a number of differing tees these days to suit the particular level of golfer who plays the course. All they can do is expect any golfer to use the tees that suit his game and length best. In the context of forced carries they'd expect that any golfer use a tee that probably is commensurate with what a quality golfer faces from the tips with forced carries.

It wasn't always that way. Long ago, in the age of the real prevalence of cop bunkers golf courses often had one tee and tee marker and all golfers used that. Obviously that was far more inequitable than it is today with courses with multi-tees.

PVGC was created for only the quality golfer on purpose and was designed with tremendously long (for its era) forced carries. Crump didn't want duffers there. Until relatively recently the course only had one set of tee markers but now they have three.

So today it's up to the duffer to pick the right tees for him commensurate to what the quality golfer faces from the tips. The duffer has the choice and only needs to make the correct one.

So I don't see how forced carries and the appropriate tees for any golfer could be considered "the new cop bunkers". If some golf course does not properly accomodate the duffer in this way the golf course was probably not really designed for him on purpose and he should probably consider not playing there regularly.

As a footnote, PVGC was always very surprised, and right from the beginning, that although they distinctly said the course was not for the duffer, that so many of them seemed to delight in playing there occassionally although they tended to shoot a million, including obviously not making many of the forced carries.

[T_MacWood]

A forced carry over water (175 to 200 yds) is worse than the cop bunker....there is hole at The Pit that comes to mind. On the other hand shortish forced carries over rough country can be exhilirating...especially for the Rabbit. Doesn't that fall under look hard, but play easy, resulting in a thrill for the duffer.

[Andy Hughes]

True or False:  Forced carries are rarely in play for quality golfers such as yourself.

I suspect the intent of this question isn't always true, in that Cape-type forced carries are very much in play for everyone, and are strategic for everyone.

[A_Clay_Man]

I take the terminology DM uses to not only be insulting but inaccurate in thier premise. Duffer's, Bad Golfers, and quality golfers ring so ludicrious I have to laugh.

Pebble Beach isn't a new course and there are more forced carries there, than most modern designs.


When we golfed the lads, and lass from TOC in match-play, I wouldn't presume to call any one of them bad golfers or duffers. They were unlikely to carry all the carries, with their games, and ya know what they didn't. Did that make them poor or bad? No!

That's why the majority preferred PG to anything they had seen or golfed.

[DMoriarty]

David, can you explain to me how the carries required on CPC don't perform the same function?  Isn't this a question of degree -- not black and white?  There are plenty of forced carries at CPC.  

First, perhaps I could better answer if you'd identify the "plenty of forced carries" at CPC.   The photos of the course at its inception show a few forced carries, but very few.  

To answer your first question . . .  No, I cant explain how CPC's carries dont perform this same function.  This is because any true forced carry performs this function to a degree.      

But then I never advocated for the elimination of any and all forced carries, did I?   This is all relative, a matter of degree.   Compared to many courses built today, CPC is largely absent of forced carries.  Take the course Matt profiled recently.  Four severe forced carries, and that was only on two holes.   Same goes for CPC compared to my home course.  

As to the forced carries, No. 15 has one I guess . . . but it is a pitch hole and while it is very intimidating there is very little ocean to carry.  

No. 16 has a forced carry.  According to MacKenzie, No. 16 had a carry of about 200 yds at the green, 100 yds near the tree, and even less of a carry following the 'safe route' even further left.  Of course of these the only forced carry.  

According to MacKenzie in Spirit, at first he doubted the hole was ideal because it lacked a truly safe route; he dismissed these doubts after hearing of a golfer reaching the green with four putts.  Certainly there was a degree of rationalization going on here (was there really a way to play left and carry less substantially less than 100 yds?? If I'd known this, I'd have taken it!)  but his obvious concern with the issue may make this an exception which goes a long ways toward proving the rule.  

Isn't this thread proof positive that what I've been saying for years now is true -- that some  of the guys here who espouse classical architecture and subtlety are really after another goal -- making golf easy on lesser players so that no bad shot goes punished, thereby minimizing the differentiation between good golfers and bad golfers.  Making it so that the bad golfer is propped up with the golfing equivalent of architectural welfare.  

No, this post is not proof positive of any such thing.   My inquiry has nothing to do with your inability to discuss anything without digressing into the same old right wing banter.  

In short, your position is absurd.  You assume I have an absurd goal, then you draw absurd conclustions.  As you well know, my goal is not" making golf easy on lesser players so that no bad shot goes punished, thereby minimizing the differentiation between good golfers and bad golfers. . . .

As you recognize, golf is a game--   A competition with winners and losers, with scores determined by results.   valued based on the result they acheive.  But the features in the course influence the degree to which the golfer succeeds and/or fails.  

I am merely examining the degree to which certain types of features influence different golfers with different skill sets.  

Let me try to explain it in your language, absurd exaggeration:

Let's take a par 3 over a 330 yard precipice out of which play is impossible.   Am I the Karl Marx of golf because I acknowledge that this hole will tend to favor the golfer who can consistently (or at least occassionally) carry the ball 330 yds (Hank Keuhne?), at least when compared to those who have no chance of ever making this carry.  

Hank Keuhne might have a chance at a par, or at least might be able to eventually hit one over so he could hole out on the hole.  Many golfers (even good ones) would have to conceed the hole or withdraw from the tournament, since they would be unable to ever complete the hole.   This would be an example of a situation where the design is quite penal to one group of golfers (all of us) as compared to another group of golfers (Hank Keuhne and the like.)  

On the other end of the spectrum would be a golf hole where the teeing ground was located on the lip of the cup, and where any golfer who could touch the ball with his club could record a hole in one.  This would be the type of golf hole you absurdly claim I favor, above.  

We have no need to discuss either one of these absurdities, becuase the are absurd.   But there is quite a lot of grey area in between, and that is where my interest lies.   A matter of degree.  Get it?  If so can we cut the absurd rhetoric and get back to the topic?  

There are plenty of games that offer what you seek -- chess, poker, backgammon . . .

 

I dont play chess.  And you don't play poker or backgammon.  If you did would would never argue that these games fail to ultimately and adequately differentiate according to skill.  

Poker and Backgammon are worth noting though because they strike A BALANCE between skill and luck.  While it may take a while for the more skillful player to ultimately distinguish himself, he will no doubt do so in the long run.  

If the old cop bunker designers better understood the importance of this balance in sport, they would undoubtledly have designed much more interesting courses.   Same goes for those designers who love the forced carry.  
_____________________

Adam, take offense, laugh, or even ignore the terminology if you like.  No skin off my nose.  These arent my terms.  Duffer goes back at least to the discussions regarding cop bunkers which took place early in this century . . . .

I never said that forced carries were new, just that they are very prevalent in today's design, expecially when compared to the supposed golden age designs.   Are you seriously disputing this?  
____________________

TEPaul,

I dont get the relevance of your PV discussion.   You arent suggesting that Pine Valley was full of cop bunkers are you?

Multiple tees provide a rather ineffective antidote to the spread of the forced carry.   If the multiple tees are too far apart then we arent really talking about the same course, are we?   If they are close together, then they provide the duffer with no real relief from the forced carry in question.  

___________________

Andy, I can see how one might conclude that the cape hole (at least the modern conception with the carry off the tee)  tends to undermine my premise.  But on the other hand, any diagonal carry also has a major strategic element (not just penal)  as the golfer can take on more or less depending on his preference.  So on a cape hole only the shortest conceivable carry only the shortest carry is "forced" and some diagonal carries have no such carry at all.

 

[A_Clay_Man]

DM- Even great players Kop one, sometimes.

The need for less irrigated turf is at the forefront of the justification for most of the forced carries.

 If it were my course, less consideration in the design process for the golfer who can't carry-it 100 yards, would make me happy. Forward tees not withstanding. I want golfers on my course, not those who haven't spent time learning the game or the ettiquette of the sport. And those who have, and still miss it, they deserve their fate and hopefully the recovery from same.

[TEPaul]

"Multiple tees provide a rather ineffective antidote to the spread of the forced carry.  If the multiple tees are too far apart then we arent really talking about the same course, are we?  If they are close together, then they provide the duffer with no real relief from the forced carry in question."

DavidM:

That's preposterous. I think you argue some of these points merely for the sake of arguing.  

[DMoriarty]

DM- Even great players Kop one, sometimes.

 Yes, they do.  Nonetheless, it is a very rare event, so I fail to see the relevance of your obseration.  Perhaps you could explain?

The need for less irrigated turf is at the forefront of the justification for most of the forced carries.

 I agree that this is certainly one of the reasons that modern designers love the forced carry.  An in-depth discussion on this topic would be great.  Nonetheless, I was hoping to stick more closely to the topic at hand.  

If it were my course, less consideration in the design process for the golfer who can't carry-it 100 yards, would make me happy. Forward tees not withstanding. I want golfers on my course, not those who haven't spent time learning the game or the ettiquette of the sport. And those who have, and still miss it, they deserve their fate and hopefully the recovery from same.

I couldnt agree more.   There are seniors who used to play well, but now they have lost their ability to put carry the ball.  Yeesh, cant they take a hint?  Talking about overstaying their welcome.  Who needs 'em, anyways.   Same with those damn kids.  Let 'em stay in their play-pens until they can hit it as far as the real men.   And if beginners cannot hit the ball far from the beginning then they shouldnt bother as they will never be any good.  

My only disagreement is with your suggested minimum distance.  No offense, but with the changes in equipment, turf, and the swing, 100 yds is more than a bit antiquated.   Hmmm, how about 230 yds.  Let's be honest, if you cant hit it 230 in the air, then you are ill-equipped for today's game and are probably just slowing down the real golfers.   But you play at altitude so lets add 10-15%.  How does 260 yds. sound?  Carry that is.  

[DMoriarty]

That's preposterous. I think you argue some of these points merely for the sake of arguing.  

Excellent point, Tom.  As usual you really have grasped the issues and furthered the discussion.   Or at least I think so . . . perhaps you will forgive my remedial pace and explain just what it was that you found so "preposterous" about my previous post?  

[Jeff Goldman]

Excellent topic, except for a couple pretty ridiculous responses.

Shivas, are you telling me that a course without forced carries can't challenge good golfers?  Or that a course that a lousy golfer can play can't be a decent course because boomers can murder it?  Have you been to Pinehurst?  Does it "minimize" the difference between good and bad golfers?Certainly forced carries beyond the clearance ability of some golfers will cause their scores to be higher, but isn't that a really dumb way to differentiate?  Sounds like your ideal course would be a driving range with targets and obstacles. Also, although I have been to none of these, it is hard to see how Butler National could be better than Cypress Point or NGLA, but according to you it must be.

David, some forced carries can be fun for lousy golfers.  At Banff, there are a bunch of relatively short cross bunkers that lesser golfers can try to clear, and when we do, it is really fun.  So while I agree that it may be the macho bs of good golfers who want "challenge" on a course so long as it basically challenges everyone else, some carries can add to our enjoyment of the game if done well (I'm not sure about the one at Rustic, not necessarily because the carry was too long, but because of the narrow landing area - I cleared during the wind round, but it boinked over into the junk on the other side.)  

Jeff Goldman

[A_Clay_Man]

David, Just because some happening is rare, doesn't mean the feature is meaningless. It is still in the mind's eye of all who golf that hole, good or bad players.

I couldnt agree more.  There are seniors who used to play well, but now they have lost their ability to put carry the ball.  Yeesh, cant they take a hint?  Talking about overstaying their welcome.  Who needs 'em, anyways.  Same with those damn kids.  Let 'em stay in their play-pens until they can hit it as far as the real men.  And if beginners cannot hit the ball far from the beginning then they shouldnt bother as they will never be any good.  

My only disagreement is with your suggested minimum distance.  No offense, but with the changes in equipment, turf, and the swing, 100 yds is more than a bit antiquated.  Hmmm, how about 230 yds.  Let's be honest, if you cant hit it 230 in the air, then you are ill-equipped for today's game and are probably just slowing down the real golfers.  But you play at altitude so lets add 10-15%.  How does 260 yds. sound?  Carry that is

Sarcasim is duely noted, BUT, the reality is that there are plenty of OTHER proving grounds, for the newer or the antiquated golfer. Why should new courses design for them. Certainly their revenue, isn't worth the problems associated with having uneducated or ill-equipt golfers tying up tee sheets and taking 5 hours to get around.

I really don't buy your argument, about the elderly. Having watched many golfers, well into their 80's, still carry the ball adequate distances, I chose the 100 yard number because of one Women, who drove into position A, on everybodies least favorite hole, the 15th at Spanish Bay, and  didn't want to break a nail, trying to carry the native 90 yards for her second. Let her go play Peter Hay.

[TEPaul]

"Excellent point, Tom.  As usual you really have grasped the issues and furthered the discussion.  Or at least I think so . . . perhaps you will forgive my remedial pace and explain just what it was that you found so "preposterous" about my previous post?"

I'd be glad to David. In my opinion, it's not just your previous post it's your entire premise on this thread. You seem to come up with premises like this from time to time (I thought that "jumping the shark thread was another one) and you seem to enjoy arguing the hell out of small and insignificant little points despite the fact that the entire premise, in reality, isn't even worth thinking about, much less discussing.

At least that's the way I feel about it. But obviously you feel entirely different. Fine, we all have our opinions and I just happen to think some of yours on this issue of forced carries becoming the new cop bunkers is preposterous.

And again, the reason I say that is almost all courses today have multiple sets of tees to both offset or accomodate that problem for most all golfers.

[Andy Hughes]

Andy, I can see how one might conclude that the cape hole (at least the modern conception with the carry off the tee)  tends to undermine my premise.  But on the other hand, any diagonal carry also has a major strategic element (not just penal)  as the golfer can take on more or less depending on his preference.  So on a cape hole only the shortest conceivable carry only the shortest carry is "forced" and some diagonal carries have no such carry at all.

David, no disagreement. Just trying to point out a forced carry that could play similarly for all levels, based on where they decide to aim.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Speaking as a duffer (handicap 15), on our home courses we play the same tees as everybody else.  Usually these are white medal tees for competitions and yellow, slightly forward tees for everyday and visitor play.  The white tees are, on most courses, at maximum length for the course.  However, championship courses may have a further set (or even two sets) of tees miles back for use in championships and one or two club competitions.  So, at my home course, the yellow tees are measured at about 6400 yards, whites at almost 6700 and the blues at around 7000 yards.  Members there customarily play the white course even for social golf, though it is relatively unusual in Britain to do this.  There is no provision in club competitions for players of differing skills to play off different tees.  The handicap system is supposed to be the only help you get and generally it works pretty well.  We have a number of forced carries over nasty rough or gorse bushes and normally these will not present a problem to the reasonably competent higher handicapper, but when the wind whistles in off the sea 170 yards of carry over gorse can be very intimidating to my level of player, and no less intimidating to the good player who will also have in mind the perils of erring to one side or the other - more gorse.  It's not relevant to me, however, as I cannot hit far enough to find that extra trouble.

I have to say that for a duffer too many forced carries over impenetrable gorse or lakes simply induce fits of topping.  Put a pond of 10-yards diameter just in front of the tee and I will often duff a ball into it simply because it is there.  However, I love the challenge of clearing the 'superintendent' of a bunker on the 16th at Ganton or the 4th at Westward Ho, the Swilken (or Swilcan) Burn on the 1st at St Andrews or the double water-carries of the 8th at Brancaster.  When occasionally I play Wilmslow as a guest of one of my sons I love the cross bunkers which have been left in play for the second shots on several holes.  They are of no interest to the 300-yard driver, but they keep my round filled with interest and challenge.

I remember playing Pasatiempo 18 months ago with a member who knew the course and its history intimately.  He pointed out, on one of the short holes on the front nine, where a bunker Mackenzie had built had been filled in.  It was probably about half way to the green and it had been put there to provide an interest and a challenge for the high-handicapper.  Even I could make the carry to the green, but I felt I was being cheated not having that bunker there.  He built it for me!

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have recently played a golf course where this topic is very much on the mind of the designer.

Tyson, of chicken fame, has just built a course in Fayetteville, Arkansas with the design team of Trent Jones Jnr.
The course is called The Blessings, and it is a brute.
I am a plus 2 handicap golfer, and from the black tess...not the very backones.....there were 5 holes that required a carry of 250 plus...I do not use the number loosely, that is the official carry distance.
Fail to carry and it is in the smellies..deep smellies.
Now whether you are a proponent of forced carries or not, this golf course is worth a visit.
They are still figuring out exactly at what yardages to play the course , but the State golf association rated the course at 78 point something.
However, this is not just some brute of a course because the architect decided that is what he wanted, it is a legitimate golf course.
Some of the elevation changes and vistas are breathtaking.
Clearly no expense was spared, and once the kinks are ironed out yardage wise, I believe this will be one of those "modern" courses we at this website talk about as being one worthy of a trip.

Another new addition in our state has been built by more deep pockets..this time belonging to the Stephens family, in Little Rock.
The course called The Alotian is a fazio design with elevation changes rather similar to Augusta...as was clearly the intent..
it is this course that has all tha attention, but I prefer Tyson's efforts.
The  Alotian is a very high dollar private establishment, but "suffers" from the usual look of Fazio courses.

I hope this is of interest....I just love this web site..you guys are great..

[DMoriarty]

David, some forced carries can be fun for lousy golfers.  At Banff, there are a bunch of relatively short cross bunkers that lesser golfers can try to clear, and when we do, it is really fun.  So while I agree that it may be the macho bs of good golfers who want "challenge" on a course so long as it basically challenges everyone else, some carries can add to our enjoyment of the game if done well (I'm not sure about the one at Rustic, not necessarily because the carry was too long, but because of the narrow landing area - I cleared during the wind round, but it boinked over into the junk on the other side.)  

Jeff Goldman

Jeff and a few others may have hit on the fundamental tension, I think.  It is fun for duffers to make it over a forced carry and it often fun to try no matter what the result.   So then the designer has their work cut out for them . . .   It seems to me that designers must incorporate the thrill of the forced carry while at the same time avoiding bogging down the game with excessively penal features which take their toll almost exclusively on the duffers.

Easier said than done, I suppose, but I think it can be done by creativive use of diagonals, optional routes give the golfer a choice of how much risk to take, and the use of carries out of which recovery is possible (ex. a bunker instead of a lake.)

____________________

TEPaul said
I'd be glad to David. In my opinion, it's not just your previous post it's your entire premise on this thread. You seem to come up with premises like this from time to time (I thought that "jumping the shark thread was another one) and you seem to enjoy arguing the hell out of small and insignificant little points despite the fact that the entire premise, in reality, isn't even worth thinking about, much less discussing.

Interesting, and here I thought the Lido thread was probably one of the best threads I have ever started . . . . at least I learned something from it.

But since you find much of my contribution here to be not worth thinking about, much less discussing, no need to humor me-- please feel free to avoid joining in these worthless discussions.   In fact, it would not bother me a bit if you refrained from reading or responding to my threads all together.  Come to think of it this shouldnt be much of a stretch, since you rarely read my posts before responding . . . .

By the way, while you suceeded in expanding your  "preposterous" insult to the bulk of my contributions on this site, you've completely failed to explain what specifically is preposterous about my claim.  

Adam,

You are kidding yourself if you think that these golfers you look down upon are going to go elsewhere to play.  They may quit the game, but they will not go elsewhere.  

[Doug Braunsdorf]

A forced carry over water (175 to 200 yds) is worse than the cop bunker....there is hole at The Pit that comes to mind. On the other hand shortish forced carries over rough country can be exhilirating...especially for the Rabbit. Doesn't that fall under look hard, but play easy, resulting in a thrill for the duffer.

Tom- I agree with you as well as most of the respondents to this post.  I am a bit ambivalent about forced carries; on one hand, for the better players, they provide a challenge, but for the duffer, they do more harm than good.  

One case in point was my last club, Congressional.  As most know, we had two 18's, both of which ended with a par 3 over water.  

Numerous times, I watched "senior" players, who could not generate enough clubhead speed to clear the hazard, put several balls into the pond--not even close to clearing the hazard.  

From the "forward" tees, the carries are not long; maybe 100 yards, if that.  


At that point I wondered "What fun is this, to dump 4-5 balls into the water?"  

I know it is fun for duffers to be able to clear the hazard, but have to wonder about from the forward tees--perhaps the hole should be designed differently to accomodate all levels--which Congressional certainly was--designed for major championships as well as member play.  

[Tags:]

Tags: