Forced Carries . . . the New Cop Bunkers?

[DMoriarty]

Well now there is an accomplishment, getting TEPaul and Patrick to hold hands in public . . . . I must really be onto something if both these guys disagree.  

Patrick, while I doubt TomPaul has bothered to read the thread before posting, I suspect that you have.  So you already know that I am not advocating removal of forced carries from any great courses.  In fact my thesis has nothing to do with the old courses (many of which judiciously used forced carries).   Rather, my focus is on the excessive use of forced carries on new courses.  (Thus the phrase "the new . . . " in the heading.)  

Why does every thread get reduced to all or nothing, good vs. bad?  What is so frightening about engaging in a conversation in less than absolutist terms?


For the sake of trying to advance the argument, I AGAIN CONCEDE:   Pine Valley, Maidstone, Merion, CPC, Pebble, NGLA all have force carries and they are all GREAT GREAT GREAT!  I LOOOOOVE THE FORCED CARRIES AT THESE COURSES.  YIPPEE AND WAHOO FOR THESE FORCED CARRIES.   Now that this is out of the way, perhaps someone can at least explain to me :

-- What challenge do forced carries present the long-hitting quality golfer?  

If you insist on going on about these great old courses, then let me put it another way . . .

Let's talk about all those forced carries on Maidstone, NGLA, CPC, and Pebble (I havent played Merion or Pine Valley.)  Excluding the carries on short par 3s, which forced carries at these course present a realistic challenge for the long-hitting quality golfer?

[Keep in mind that on a diagonal carry, the only "forced" part of the carry is the shortest point on the diagonal.  For example, CPC 16 is not a forced carry of 200+, but much less.]


Cary,  Dr. MacKenzie's comments on the carries at CPC 16 are pretty interesting, I discuss these comments a little somewhere above . . .

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

One can't answer your hypothetical without knowing what lies beyond the forced carry.

For example, on the drive at # 3 at NLGA, a long hitter may find himself in tall fescue with a pronounced uphill lie, or in one of the bunkers that await the long ball.

Trying to drive it far right may result in a push, fade or slice that puts him in the rough or woods, and a mishit drive probably won't carry the crossing bunker in the far right corner.

So one can't look at your proposition without knowing the totality of the configuration of the architectural features that present themselves to the golfer.

#'s 1, 2, 3 , 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 all present problems to the long hitter off the tee, not to mention the problems faced on the second, or approach shot.

I would agree that some forced carries on newer courses, especially where water and wind are substantive factors, can be a problem.  The Medalist and Old Marsh spring to mind.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Thanks for taking the time to consider the issue.  

You make a good point regarding the need to consider what lies beyond.   Perhaps this notion can be expanded even further . . . Is it too much to say that forced carries become more interesting and challenging whenever the golfer has to consider more than just blasting it straight over them?  
 
No. 6  at NGLA (or any "Short hole) would be an example on the other end of this spectrum.  The 130 yd carry alone wouldn't pose much problem for the stratch if could just blast away.  But since he also has to worry about going over, the carry is much more exacting and exciting.  

Unfortunately, most modern forced carries dont present this kind of dual challenge.  Instead, they are often open-ended affairs, where the golfer who succeeds in hitting it straight over is home free.  

One point of departure which is somewhat aside from your main point--  It may be a mistake to overemphasize the impact of 'forced carries' such as the diagonal bunker on No. 3 at NGLA, at least as originally designed and built.  

First, the consequences of some (but not all) of these forced carries are much less dire than the Matt Ward Roach Motels in favor these days.  For example on No. 3 if one fails to carry the bunker, one still may be in the hole, especially given that one's opponent still has a very difficult second, even assuming a perfectly placed drive.

Second, the accomplished player might not be too concerned with making the forced carry, given the relatively short carry distance and the ample landing area.  Yes, it seems a very demanding drive, but I would suggest moreso because of the trouble which lies beyond, rather than from the slight possibility that the quality golfer will leave the drive short.  

Third, shouldn't we note the original distances, conditions, and mowing patterns when considering the difficulty and consequence of the forced carries on this or any other classic course?    According to Evangelist, No. 3 has grown 50 yards in length since it first opened,  although in fairness I should note that much of this length was apparently gained in very early on.  Even so, from the carry over the diagonal bunker was quite possibly shorter than now, especially from the middle tee.   The left-short fairway line may have extended almost all the way to the left front corner of the diagonal bunker, further lessening the actual "forced" part of the carry.  

But still, there is no denying that some aspect of forced carry here.   I agree that when combined with the other strategic elements (diagonal trap, diagonal hillside, diagonal fairway)  it makes for a challenging and interesting drive for most levels.  


___________________________

To Patrick, TomPaul, Cary, Anyone Interested,

  Suppose the areas short and left of NGLA No. 3's diagonal bunker were maintained so that the duffed shot short (or left) of the bunker would be playable (say it was maintained as a fairway or short rough) . . .

-- Would this change diminish the quality of the golf hole in any way?   If so how so?  
--Would this change improve the golf hole in any way?   If so how so?  
--Would the improvement (if any) outweigh the dimunition (if any)?

[tonyt]

I back the comments citing that undemanding forced carries are both enjoyable and in some instances an important architectural device for the lesser golfer.

In some cases, they make a tee shot look more menacing or penal than it is. The look hard / play easy shot is a legitimately good principle that I hope is often put in place for years to come. Intimidation is fine, especially if it is more visual than actual. In other cases, they are sucker elements designed to betray assumptions and give distance impressions that aren't real.

Both above instances not only are just visual and won't bite, but if the worst case does occur with a duffer's shot, they can be designed so they can at least find their ball and hit it.

I like the principle that a feature shouldn't beat up the meek and pay homeage to the strong. But to enshrine this thought into auto pilot without respect for each individual application, clever or otherwise, is to go dangerously formulaic and smells of short sighted stupidity.

[DMoriarty]

Tony Titheridge


I too agree that undemanding forced carries are both enjoyable and in some instances an important architectural device for the lesser golfer.  We should commend and encourage the judicious use of forced carries to create various illusions, including the illusion that the shot is more difficult and dangerous than it actually is.

I like the principle that a feature shouldn't beat up the meek and pay homeage to the strong.  But to enshrine this thought into auto pilot without respect for each individual application, clever or otherwise, is to go dangerously formulaic and smells of short sighted stupidity.

I completely agree, but suggest that it is actually this argument's  corrolary conterpart which currently poses a far greater threat to quality design.  

Many contemporary designers seem to eschew creative and clever use of forced carries in favor of treating them as end-all-be-all determinators of shot-value and challenge. Incredibly, these myopic design decisions are staunchly defended by such respected voices as Matt Ward, TEPaul, Adam Claman and others who suggest that, because forced carries have been cleverly and successfully used in the past, they should be considered off limits to all critique and discussion.  

Dont you agree that to enshrine this thought into auto pilot without respect for each individual application, clever or otherwise, is to go dangerously formulaic and smells of short sighted stupidity?

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

The tee shot at # 3 at NGLA should also be viewed in the context of its design intent, which was the choice in how much you wanted to bite off, and the resultant strategy/ies offered by successfully or unsuccessfully executing your drive.

Unless the wind is in your face, with today's ball and equipment, the diagonal carry bunker has lost much of its effect, its design intent.  If the tee could be brought further back, right next to the 2nd green, it might help return some of the strategy.

I see the safety issue as the primary problem in doing that since today's golfers can fly it to that point.  Perhaps a bell, similar to the McBride bell behind # 3 green would solve the problem.

As to your question about mowing the area short of the carry bunker, remember the third tee is elevated far above that area, a golfer should be able to carry the shorter left side which only requires a 170 yard carry which plays to a 150 yard carry from the back tees due to the elevation change.

Don't forget that forward tees are 15 and 48 yards closer, making the carry far less onerous if a golfer is playing the tees commensurate with their ability.

All too often discussions go awry by viewing the play of a hole by a high handicap from the championship tees, tees he should only see as he passes them on his walk to the appropriate tees for his game.

When you have a forced carry absent any architectural features/considerations beyond that carry, I would classify the condition as one dimensional design.
 

[Brent Hutto]

I won't cry Schmidt a river but I will point out that almost any feature commonly found on a golf course tends to emphasize the difference between a long hitting scratch player and a short hitting mediocre player. Therefore, forced carries which serve the purpose of enhancing that difference are devalued relative to other features. Put more simply, there are dozens of ways to penalize the short hitter so making him hit it over 220 yards of water isn't exactly a novel or interesting thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brent Hutto,

I don't know of any courses that make a short hitter/high handicap carry the ball 220 across water.

At the moment, I can't think of any courses that require a 220 carry over water from the members back tees either.

Can anybody name some examples ?

[Brent Hutto]

Brent Hutto,

I don't know of any courses that make a short hitter/high handicap carry the ball 220 across water.

At the moment, I can't think of any courses that require a 220 carry over water from the members back tees either.

Can anybody name some examples ?

I just picked up the 220 number from Dave's earlier reply. You are correct that such carries if used at all would be from the back tees. The only short hitters that would impact are those who think they are long hitters and who play from too far back from ego. So in that sense maybe it's a good thing...

[A_Clay_Man]

 Many contemporary designers seem to eschew creative and clever use of forced carries in favor of treating them as end-all-be-all determinators of shot-value and challenge. Incredibly, these myopic design decisions are staunchly defended by such respected voices as Matt Ward, TEPaul, Adam Claman and others who suggest that, because forced carries have been cleverly and successfully used in the past, they should be considered off limits to all critique and discussion.  

David - once again you try to pigeonhole others thoughts. At least this time, you made it so confusing, wiith so many tangents, I don't even understand it.

Let me see if I can get this right? You don't agree with the big World Theory, but state the advocate, is myopic, in his vision of what constitiutes great GCA?

Or is this all about RC again?

Speaking of which...

How did RC survive this year's rains?

[GeoffreyC]

Pat

From the back tees there are carries off 220 minimum to 245 over wetlands with no bailouts on holes 4 (my estimate 230), 9 (220 minimum) and 11 (245 at least) on French Creek.  In addition there is a 225 yard par 3 (#3) with a 200 yard forced carry. For a course with back tee yardage of only 6700 yards I find this unfortunate.

[DMoriarty]

Forced carries don't present ANY challenge to the long hitting golfer with any decent level of talent at the game (the only long hitters I would exempt from this statement are those occasional "blind squirrel" golfers who hit it 250+ once every few rounds, but duff the rest).  

Why should I ever worry about having to hit a tee shot 220 to carry something, whether it's water or gorse or a bunker or whatever?  It would take one hell of a wind to get me to worry about carrying a ball 220 off the tee -- that's for sure.  

So that's the answer.  Even the longest forced carries don't present a challenge to good, long golfers.

There it is. . . .

Dave, thanks for having the courage to admit your agreement with the obvious, for without such agreement, reasonable discussion is impossible.  It seems a simple thing, but you should be hailed as a hero and role model so that those (Matt Ward and TEPaul for example) who consistenly cower at even the smallest concession might learn from your example.
 

Now for the better question:  so what?  

Even if we take as a given that they present NO challenge to the good, long hitter and present a TON of challenge to the short hitter or lesser player, what's the point?  So, this aspect of the course makes it harder for the short hitter relative to the long hitter.  BFD.  Cry me a river.  Too damn bad.  Quit whining.  Deal with it.  Get longer.  

What's the premise behind the curtain of this theory? -- that courses should be designed to equalize the results as between the short and long?  

Might I refer you to my response to your previous rant where, like here, you tried to turn this simple question into some sort of referendum of political correctness, equality, and communism all rolled into one.  To review, this is not black and white, but A MATTER OF DEGREE.  I am simply curious about how differently skilled golfers interact with forced carries.  

While we are on a roll with obvious admitting obvious points of agreement, let's try this one . . . Competent designers, players and design critics all must have some understanding of the consequences of the various features utilized in golf design.   Surely you agree with this, don't you?   Well, all I am trying to do is advance this understanding.  

Let's take that to the logical extreme in other aspects of golf where there are differences between players.

I hit it all over the map with my driver.  Therefore, I would like huge containment mounds that veer my snaphooks and right-to-right push-shoves back into play.  Straight hitters don't have to worry about what's 40 yards left and right of the fairway, but I do, so the penalty for being wild should be eliminated.  This wouldn't hurt Fred Funk at all, but it would me enjoy the game a ton and I'd be far more competitive against Fred Funk.  In fact, I'd be a better driver than Fred Funk.
. . .
I can't chip.  Therefore, I want giant punchbowl green complexes with shaven mounds all around on every hole, so that when I miss a green, the ball trickles back onto the green every single time.  It's not fair that a guy who can actually hit the green should get to putt, whereas I have to chip for missing it.  I'd be a better player relative to guys who actually know where their irons are going, so I want it.  

Wow, wouldn't THIS be a fun game.  

As usual, your "logical extreme" is an illogical absurdity.  Contrary to your and other's repeated hobgoblin's of extremism, this has never been about elimating all advantages or disadvantages for any groups of players.  To the contrary, it is about considering those advantages and disadvantages and discussing the balance between them.  

So while the design aspects you mention-- fairway width, containment, green contours, green surrounds, even cup size (see Thomas's GCA in America)-- are all part of the equation, the real issue is the effect of these design aspects and TO WHAT DEGREE are should be implimented in particular circumstances.  

This premis is not all that radical, novel, or controversial, unless of course you think that trying to understand the way things work is radical, novel, and controversial.  

So what about the questions at the bottom of my post to Patrick?  Care to take a shot?  

[BCrosby]

In the fog of sarcasm here about bad golfers trying to deal with long forced carries...

Long forced carries are different - qualitatively - from other hazards. A forced carry of 200 yards or so would end the round of many people. They could stand there all day and not carry it. They would be unable to proceed (absent local rules allowing them to drop on the other side ofthe water) with their next shot.

It's too glib (and condescending to boot) to say to them - get better. Learn to hit it farther. Find another hobby.

Other hazards don't have the same potential to end a round.

Long forced carries don't exist? Just off the top of my head, see the 15th at Cuscowilla. The 12th at Colleton River (Nicklaus). The 17th at Ocean Forest. The 9th at Mid-Ocean.

Bob  

[T_MacWood]

Dave
Is throwing a basketball 12 feet in the air or hitting a tennis ball over the net the equivalent of carrying a golf ball 200 yards? I think I was doing the first two when I was about seven or eight.

Would it be too glib to tell a glib attorney from Chicago that his glibness is making my butt itch?

[BCrosby]

Dave -

I'm not comfortable telling anyone they shouldn't participate in a sport. However badly they may play it. Are you?

But as to your examples, each is an act necessary to play the sport a some threshhold level. Hitting a ball 200 yards in the air is not a threshhold to playing golf. In fact, most golfers can't hit it that far and enjoy the game enormously.

The lesson is not that we should encourage weak players to leave the game. Or tell them glibly to just hit it farther. The lesson is that long forced carries are a special kind of hazard and should be used very, very rarely.

Bob

 

[DMoriarty]

David - once again you try to pigeonhole others thoughts. At least this time, you made it so confusing, wiith so many tangents, I don't even understand it.

Sorry to pigeonhole you Adam, but if the nest fits . . . .  Perhaps a word of explanation:  Whenever I find myself making vague allusions to "some people" or "some posters" or "while others" I try instead to name those I to whom I am referring, as it is only fair to allow those to whom I am referring to know that I am talking about them and to allow them an opportunity to respond.

Let me see if I can get this right? You don't agree with the big World Theory, but state the advocate, is myopic, in his vision of what constitiutes great GCA?

With regard to this particular issue, you are close but not quite understanding.  I dont agree with the Big World Theory, but that is largely a tangential issue perhaps better saved for another day.  I do think that TEPaul is myopic when it comes to his willingness to consider the effects of forced carries on differently skilled golfers.  I meant to give no opinion (here at least) on Tom Paul's views of what constitutes great GCA.  Also, I threw you and Matt in their as well.  Otherwise you are on the money.  

Or is this all about RC again?

 

What an odd question!   Had you made it to Rustic Canyon recently you would know that Rustic has quite a few daunting forced carries.  So I guess in a sense the origins of this post have something to do with Rustic, in the sense that some of the forced carries at Rustic pose similar issues.  But then I doubt that is what you had in mind.  

Speaking of which...

How did RC survive this year's rains?

An even odder question!  Especially since you already think you know the answer--  you recently discussed this with a mutual friend of ours didnt you?   I was disappointed to hear that he suggested that you not bother to play the course now because the current conditions provide for some extremely enjoyable golf.   I'd have love to have joined you for a round, if you would have been so inclined.  

If I didnt know you were such an advocate of objective and rational discussion, I might conclude that this was you petty attempt at changing the topic to something you mistakenly think I want to avoid.  If this is the case, then how un-ayn of you.  Who is John Galt?  Obviously not Adam Clayman.  

But to answer your question (if it really was one.)  It is much to early to know how rustic will survive the Winter rains.  The first hard rains brought some debris back onto the seventh fairway, some bunkers on No. 12 were flooded for a few days, and some of the cart bridges washed out yet again.   This pattern will probably continue until the burn area reestablishes itself.   If you are really curious I'd be glad to give you a more detailed description.

_______

I thank the rest of you for your thoughtful posts, but will have to respond to them later.  

[A_Clay_Man]

David- I too was sorry to miss you and RC. And my questions about how it held up, were genuine. Since, when I last spoke with our mutal emperor, I mean friend, he alluded to the possibility of major damage, due to the precise location of the severe weather. We caught up with that same storm in the Mojave desert, where it was raining buckets.


I'll take a different tact and try to answer your question this way:
No, The modern forced carry, is NOT the old Kop Bunker.

Isn't the typical Kop bunker, built on land that is devoid of enough character, as to require a kop bunker? or, something (reparian, or hazard-like) that is in the line of instinct?

.

[BCrosby]

Dave -

Long forced carries are an architectural problem. Why? Because some golfers can't carry them.

There are two responses to that problem. One is that "chops shouldn't play them."  An answer that has two virtues. It is brief and it assumes away the problem.

Another response - if you are asked to design a course that will be played by a wide range of players - is to grapple with the notion. These hazards impose a special burden on weaker players. You had better know what you are doing when you put one in the ground.

That doesn't mean you never design a long forced carry. (They are in fact used pretty rarely.) It does mean that the designer should have thought through the issue. They are not like another bunker or another tree or additional contouring. They are a special breed of hazard.

My guess is that good architects go through (agonize about?) something like that thought process. They should.

My other guess is that those architects that resolve the issue by using sentences having the form: "chops shouldn't play courses with __________" don't get a lot of work.

Bob

[Doug Siebert]

In the absence of the examples that Dave is requesting, I don't know why this is even being discussed.  Why should architects give a rat's ass what happens when a guy who's big blow carries 190 decides to play a 75.0/145 course from the tips?  He ought to have some idea what he's getting himself into, and know it isn't necessarily all about just needing an extra fairway wood on each long hole to get home.

To me, its all a question of what is an appropriate expectation from a given set of tees, given their length and rating/slope, because a lot of people decide what tees to play based on that.  If you play your home course at 6500 yards, you probably won't go jumping back to the 7200 yard tees (ignoring the "get my money's worth" crowd) but probably aren't likely to be happy with playing at 5900 yards if the option is available to play at 6600.  But if the 6600 yard tees have a slope of 150 or include four forced carries of 200 or more yards, it would seem to be the job of the starter to make people aware that they might want to play one set of tees shorter than they would choose based on their experiences at home, unless "home" is somewhere like PV.

Given that some players aren't going to listen to reason or evaluate their abilities realistically, why should it be the job of the architects to smooth things out for them?  Maybe the slap in the face of seeing a giant canyon in front of them and their cart's GPS saying "238 yards to reach fairway on other side" is what those guys need to realize when they are in over their heads.

[BCrosby]

I gave three or four examples in my post on the previous page. As memory serves, those are all from the regular tees. For example, the carry on the 15th at Cusco from the back is more like 220, from the front about 200.

I think we will see more of those sorts of carries as people continue to hit it farther and designers scramble for ways to defend par.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

Dave
I wasn't aware being able to a carry the ball 200 yds was a "prerequisite required to be able to play the game", thankfully when I began playing golf the prerequisite was only enough strength to grip and swing the club. I reckon in your world you don't see many beginners and seniors. We might have to add cold hearted bastard to your glibness tag.

Making the ability to carry the ball 200 yds a requirement or prerequisite is like requiring the beginner to be able to dunk...which I can still do by the way.

[T_MacWood]

Dave
Is throwing a basketball 12 feet in the air or hitting a tennis ball over the net the equivalent of carrying a golf ball 200 yards? I think I was doing the first two when I was about seven or eight.

Yes, its the equivalent.  It's the equivalent in the sense that it's the necessary prerequisite to play the game as currently configured.  I suppose we could always lower the basket or shorten the court.  

Would it be too glib to tell a glib attorney from Chicago that his glibness is making my butt itch?

[T_MacWood]

Walter Travis would beat you with an old Schnectady if caugth wind of your disdain for the average to short driver.

[SL_Solow]

I seem to recall The Good Doctor remarking that his ideal course ought to be playable with a putter.  Granted topography can make that impossible, witness the barrancas at Pasatiempo, and some of the environmental areas in many modern courses.  But the point is well taken that we should not make even "championship courses " unplayable for junior and senior players.  This is particularly true for club courses.  As we get older, I hope that we need not fear that we will be unable to enjoy our home courses because our strength has lessened if not our skill.  One of the beauties of the game is that it is indeed, as advertised, a game for a lifetime.  The ability to play with my Dad and my son at the same time is a real attraction.  If alternate tees solve the problem, that is wonderful so long as the challenge of the game remains.  But I think that those who are most vehement in objecting to Dave M's question are missing a significant portion of his point.  Cop bunkers were roundly criticized as artificial hazards that only penalized weaker players while leaving better players unscathed.  Thus they were viewed as ugly, as causes of delay, and as unnecessary to create a challenge for those who were troubled by them.  Proponents of random bunkering did not have a problem with the occasional bunker aimed at challenging the weaker player as a means of increasing interest for them but objected to the formulaic and artificial look of the cop bunker.  Clearly the forced carry of the type Dave M is questioning has the same objectionable characteristics as the cop bunker except that it may be more natural in appearance.  Additionally, it was possible to play short of many cop bunkers where that is impossible with respect to forced carries so in some ways they are more "objectionable".  So is the real reason the cop bunker was a bad feature is that we didn't like its appearance?  If its a form rather than a function issue, so be it; I don't think anybody would argue that they were attractive.  However Dave M's question about the wisdom of challenging the weaker player  to the exclusion of the stronger player remains.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said:

"Many contemporary designers seem to eschew creative and clever use of forced carries in favor of treating them as end-all-be-all determinators of shot-value and challenge. Incredibly, these myopic design decisions are staunchly defended by such respected voices as Matt Ward, TEPaul, Adam Claman and others who suggest that, because forced carries have been cleverly and successfully used in the past, they should be considered off limits to all critique and discussion."

In response to that Adam Clayman in reply #64;

"David - once again you try to pigeonhole others thoughts. At least this time, you made it so confusing, wiith so many tangents, I don't even understand it."

Adam:

I couldn't possibly agree with you more. What David Moriarty said (in that quote) my position was on forced carries---a postion I put on this thread a couple of times, isn't even close! He's mentioned a couple of times on here I don't read what he writes. Maybe I don't read what he writes carefully enough but I can't imagine how he could've read what I've said about forced carries on this thread and come to that interpretation in that quote. Again, it's not even close to what I said on this thread.

[Tags:]

Tags: