Forced Carries . . . the New Cop Bunkers?

[ForkaB]

Forced carries concentrate the mind, and thus are easier than the farmer's field for the better golfer.  I've seen a lot of good players top their balls on blah holes, but very few fail to keep it in the air when such is required.

PS--I'd pay BIG money to watch the MacWood and Mucci slam dunk contest...........

[SL_Solow]

Sarazen had the same argument about larger holes so they tried a tourney with big holes.  Sarazen made a lot more 10 footers and Horton Smith (the Crenshaw of his day) and the others made 30 footers.  I am not fighting the advantage that a big hitter has; its part of the skill set and should be rewarded.  I'd like to see equipment that preserved the classic courses; Jack's distance advantage coupled with his other skills was more than enough in the old days.  The real question that Dave M asks is why penalize the weakest players?  And I'm not advocating wholesale revisions to the classics, My question and I think Dave M's as well relates to some of the newer courses which feature numerous forced carries off the tee with limited alternate routes.  In fact, I rather like the risk/reward carry favoring a longer hitter with an alternate route best exemplified by a cape style hole.  Thats where the big boys get a real advantage if they can hit their shot at the right time while the shorter hitter has to try to find a different way to make up his disadvatage.  Like wedging close and making a putt while the big boy with the long putter three putts.  So long as everybody has a chance to play the hole their way, its a competition where the ability to play all the clubs in the bag is tested.  All things being close to equal, length is a huge advantage as closer approaches should yield more greens and shorter putts.  But greater choices lead to more fun for a larger number of players and better competition as well.  How do the types of carries under discussion aid these goals?  As for me, I have not yet reached the stage where I haven't been able to cope so this in't about me.... yet.

[DMoriarty]

Darn it, this thread finally gets interesting and I barely have time to read the posts much less participate. (Perhaps I should take a hint?).  Oh well the luck of the Irish.  

A few comments for my friend Shivas . . .

Isn't this much ado about nothing?  
Will somebody give me an example of just one 220 yard forced carry from the "up tees" on any course in America built in the last 50 years? Just one.

It depends on what you mean by the up tees.  If you mean the tee most regulars play (the "members tee" on a private course) then how about Rustic Canyon No. 14.  The minimum forced carry from the blue plate might be a little under 225 yds, but the hole plays into the prevailing wind.    In the photo below, the black plate is on the small tee in the upper right corner, the blue is near the back of the long tee below the back tee, the white is the back tee above the fairway, the red is the next up, and the shortest tee box is the much used drop area . . .


Also Shivas, take a look at the photos that Matt posted recently of the Engh course in Colorado (I think.)  Golfers on that course may face a 200 yard forced carry on their second or third shots.
.................................................

Shivas, I doubt that many top notch bowlers would be very threatened by the use of bumpers for beginning bowlers-- their skill will still allwo them to always score much better than your little girl.  So why dont top notch golfers take the same attitude when it comes to simple solutions to keep the duffers in the game?   Surely bowlers are not better sportsmen than golfers?  

(Leave in the bumpers for the better bowlers, and they wouldn't be thrilled because the bumpers would interfere in their game.  But you and I agree that forced carries do not interfere with the big hitter's game, so golfers do not face this same dilemna.)
.......................................................

Shivas said:

take you one further, Dave.  To be honest, I didn't even concern myself with the diagonal bunker on #3, let alone the area short and left of it!  The only things I wanted to know on that tee were "how far to the hill, what do I have in from there, and how far do I have in from the right if I pound a driver right?"  Of course, there was one more thing:  "where the hell is the GREEN?!?"   It was patently obvious that the diagonal bunker could be cleared at all points with any club I'd ever even remotely consider teeing off with.  

Thank you Shivas for making my point for me.  No quality golfer would ever consider that they might hit it short of the cross bunker.  So it is an example of a forced carry which is entirely irrelevant to the quality golfer's game.  Whether it was grassed or a gator pit, it really doesnt matter.  It is irrelevant.  So the forced carry over the gunk short of that bunker adds absolutely nothing to the integrity of the hole for the vast majority of golfers.  

You have got to get over this notion that I want to dismantle NGLA or any other classic course.  Patrick brought up the carry on No. 3, and we are using it as a discussion point.  My question about mowing there was merely a hypothetical to point out how absurd it is for a quality golfer to get worked up about defending this type of forced carry.  

[Let's try not to make this too political, but perhaps if you thought of this in terms of federalism it might help you see at what I am driving.  One of the key tenents underlying federalism is that most problems are best solved by those with a stake in the issue, and those without a stake in the issue should butt out, or risk the suspicion, resentment, and scorn.  ('Who does X think he is trying to tell us how to live our life or what we should believe in?')]  Well, quality players have no horse in the forced carry race, so why are so many of them in love with forced carries? ]

................................................

As for you basketball, accounting, baseball, tennis, water polo examples, they all are entirely beside the point.  

 You claim that these examples are golf's "equivalent in the sense that it's the necessary prerequisite to play the game as currently configured.  

Again my friend your are sadly mistaken.   While some designers and posters seem to think so, golf is not "currently configured"  to dictate the inclusion of excessive forced carries which are entirely irrelevant to all but the worst duffers.  

Water polo needs water, it is a necessary part of the game which influences all players good and bad.   The height of the basket in basketball and the net in tennis also influence every level of player.  Raise or lower them and it changes the entire dynamic of the game.  In contrast, you have already admitted that most of these forced carries are entirely irrelevant to all but the worst duffers.  

A better analogy would be if only basketball players who could dunk at will were allowed on the court.  Like the long carry, dunking is certainly part of the game and it sure helps to be able to do it.  But it isnt a necessary prerequisite of the game, and it would be foolish to require that every player be able to do it.  
..............................

As for your 7 handicap friend who is a short hitter, he is far from an unusual exception.  There are many good golfers who do not carry the ball a mile.  Eliminating them from the get-go is downright foolish.  

[DMoriarty]

Patrick said:

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.

It is a mistake to always consider the design from the back tees.   But is also a mistake to assume that only "high handicaps" have trouble with carry distance.  There are many very good golfers who do not carry the ball a long ways, and unfortunately the gap in distance between golfers of similar abilities has grown quite large.  

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.

 

I thought there was quite an elevation change, but wasnt sure I remembered correctly, so thanks for refreshing my recollection,.  While I dont doubt the hole plays as you describe, I dont think you quite answered my question, at least not directly.  Even so, it seems we agree that this short area really isnt in play for almost all golfers.  Since it isn't in play for quality players, then I will assume that you agree that mowing the area short of the bunker would not change the playability of the course for any but the real duffers.  

(One might be able to make a convincing argument that the carry over this short gunk is the type of forced carry that gives the duffer a thrill, but is actually not very difficult or dangerous.   This may be so, but it seems the diagonal bunker would better accomplish this without potentially slowing up play with the loss of balls.  NOTE:  I am not suggesting that NGLA should make this change.  Rather I am merely trying to point out how irrelevant many forced carries are to all but the worst duffers.)

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, one more point. If you wont listen to me, then listen to your friend Mr. Solow.  
_____________________________

TEPaul, if I misunderstood your position, please set me straight.  As I explained to Adam, I name names to give you precisely that opportunity.  

If you do choose to enter the substantive conversation (there was absolutely nothing substantive in your recent post to Adam), perhaps I can make a suggestion . . . this thread is well past the point of stubbornly refusing to even consider my premise, so you might want to take a look at a few of the posts before jumping in.  

It will be nice to have you if do decide to actually participate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

S L Solow,

The good Doctors words seem to be in conflict with his deeds.

Tell me how he envisioned playing ANGC and CPC with a putter ?  It's virtually impossible.

DMoriarty,

The forced carry at # 3 is important because of the risk/reward nature of the angled carry and the resultant decisions and strategies that the carry creates.  

Granted that the modern ball and equipment have diminished the impact of that feature, but, the bunkers and high, dense fescue beyond the diagonal bunker have come more into play.
Hence the diagonal carry bunker doesn't exist in an architectural vacuum.

How do you view your desire to mow the area short of the diagonal bunker to fairway on # 3 at NGLA, in the context of the tee shot on the 16th hole at CPC ?  

[T_MacWood]

Pat
MacKenzie addresses the issue of the 16th at CPC in his book...if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend it.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick I heard you the first time, but I was referring to the gunch short of the diagonal bunker.  Surely you are not suggesting that the accomplished player seriously contemplates ending up in this gunch are you?  

As for your comments to Mr. Solow and your question to me regarding CPC, No. 16 in particular, the issue has been covered a couple of times above.   Or you can take a look at Spirit of St. Andrews were MacKenzie also covers this very issue.   Instead of trying to remember any of it, I'll borrow from my post no. 13, above . . .

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.

Also Patrick, I have absolutely no desire to mow anything at NGLA . . . the course seems to be doing pretty well without my meddling.  As I also explained above, I was just running with the example you brought up to demonstrate that some of these much vaunted forced carries are actually irrelevancies to accomplished golfers . . .

(this last statement, by the way, applies to the diagonal bunker.  The only carry that is forced is the portion over the left side of the bunker, and I think we can agree that this portion is not really in play for the accomplished player.)

As for ANGC, weren't the forced carries merely a matter of clearing a couple of feet of creek (before they started growing lakes, that is) out of which golfers could sometimes even play?  I hardly think that is comparable to the type of forced carries I contemplated at the beginning of this thread.  

As for MacKenzie professing that he thought the golfer should be able to play the round with only a putter, I dont recall if he ever said this or not.  Just a guess, but perhaps this is a reference to the discussion about CPC 16 I mention above?   I do seem to recall MacKenzie favoring some carries to thrill the golfer, even writing that the lack thereof was a weakness of his beloved old course . . .

Whatever MacKenzie said or didnt about the putter, if ANGC is one of your examples of MacKenzie's supposed inconsistency on this issue, then I'd say you have an uphill battle in making a convincing argument.
.......................................

Shivas said

Tell you what, Shel, we can talk about the wisdom of this but we have to talk about it at the same time as the wisdom of challening the directionally challenged player at the exclusion of straight arrows like you and Fred Funk and challenging guys who have turned to the long-putter in disgrace and read greens like Helen Keller to the exclusion of great putters like Crenshaw and -- big surprise -- you.  Deal?

But Shivas, we have these types of discussions all the time!  What about the discussions of wide fairways . . .  about letting the hacks off the hook . . . about Barney's Field of Fantasy, or whatever it was . . . about the USGA setups being too narrow,stiffling creativity, and killing off the Seve recovery shot . . . about whether good putters are advantaged or disadvantaged on flat greens . . . about fairness of wild greens . . . about any aspect of Rustic . . . about strategic design . . . about just about anything else we discuss here?!?!  

Dont the vast majority of our discussions really boil down to how certain design characteristics advantage/ disadvantage/ exclude/ include certain players as compared to others?

If you've got some sort of equal time rule for this thread vs. the types of threads you mention, we'll be talking exclusively about forced carries for at least the next three years.  Looking forward to it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The good doctor contradicts himself at times, and I wouldn't hold his remark to Billy Humphrey as the gospel.

The good doctor confirms that which I have said about the play of the hole, and indicated that he felt it was not an ideal hole because there was not a sufficiently easy route for the weaker player.  He cites the required carries as 200 yards, 100 yards and a shorter route to the left.  He says the same thing about # 15.

He also discusses the impossibility of playing # 5 at Pine Valley, and more importantly, his intent to put the tee on
# 18 at CPC on a rock in the ocean, connected by a bridge.
Hardly puttable, wouldn't you say ?

Perhaps what he preached and what he built are two different things.  If you'd like to discuss # 12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC and the use of a putter, I'd be happy to continue the debate.

Perhaps you should reread what AM wrote, and examine it in the context of the disparity between what he wrote about his principles and what he actually designed and built in the ground.

I think his statement to Billy Humphrey was an exaggeration meant to tease, distract and confuse a critic or nuisance.

He also emphasized the need for heroic, forced carries as a signature of a great golf course, making the putter a choice of jest.

I wonder if his distain of blind holes was a poke at CMB and NGLA

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

# 12 and # 15 were hardly a few feet of hazard.
They were substantive bodies of water, not little streams as you believe

The angle of approach at # 13 translates to a much wider hazard then you can imagine.  Few, if any approach # 13 green from the direction of # 14 tee, where the creek could be said to be narrow, but narrow in a good number of yards, not feet.
The same could be said of # 16, the angle of the creek presents a wider target then if you approached the creek from a 90 degree angle.

My argument remains solid.

Also, reread my comment to S L Solow, it was about the play of holes at ANGC and CPC with a putter, not about heroic forced carries.  Although, I found the carries into # 13 and
# 15 to be heroic, despite their varying lengths, 3-wood or wedge, likewise with # 12.

As to Billy Humphrey's opponent reaching the green at # 16 at CPC in four strokes with a putter, one doesn't know if that is the truth or an exaggeration on the part of Billy Humphrey.  And, based on my history of playing with a putter, I tend to think it was a bold exaggeration.

[DMoriarty]

We seem to be getting carried away with this notion that MacKenzie believed that a golfer should be able to play every hole with only a putter.  As I said above, I dont recall MacKenzie ever writing this, but I have a bad memory so he could have. It isn't in his thirteen points.

Did MacKenzie ever express the belief that every hole should be playable with a putter?

If so what is the source?  

If not then perhaps we should stop trying to hold him to this extreme and apocryphal standard.

Patrick . . .

Well at least we agree on what MacKenzie said about CPC 16.

As for ANGC have no intention of diminishing the significance of Rae's creek as a hazard.  But if the creek was a few or more yards in places rather than a couple of feet, my point remains the same.  These carries barely register as such when compared to what passes for acceptable carries by today's standards.  This is true even when we consider the tricky angles and the "substantive bodies of water." (Having grown up near the banks of the Missouri, I got a kick out of this description.)

If you seriously contend that the carries at ANGC support your "argument" then I must say I have no idea what your argument is or how it is relevant the topic of this thread.   Perhaps you could restate it and explain?

If you are trying to argue that MacKenzie was not always consistent in his application of his general principles, then I concede.  Of course he wasn't.  He'd have been a fool if he had been.  That being said . . .

I am by no means an expert on MacKenzies courses, but I have played around a half dozen of his original designs here in the U.S. (not ANGC) and in my experience his ideals hold up pretty well in the ground.  Perhaps the fame and notoriety of CPC No. 16 biases many into beleiving that he was less consistent than he actually was.  If so, this is more than a little ironic since MacKenzie declined credit for the design of CPC 16.

[tonyt]

There are plenty of ways of devising a forced carry so that players incapable of doing so at least can find their ball and hit it. Some of this argument seems to take on an automatic assumption that the mean and nasty forced carry is always over a cliff or a lake.

And whilst the point is raised about good players playing from longer markers also being short hitters at times, I haven't been witness for a very long time to a Paul Runyanesque pitch to a shorter tee from a low marker.

Once both shorter tees and wayward lines of play that extend the length and difficulty of the hole are considered, I don't see many examples of players picked up by the ears and forced to stand at a tee all day and empty balls into a 200+ yard abyss.

[DMoriarty]

. . . Some of this argument seems to take on an automatic assumption that the mean and nasty forced carry is always over a cliff or a lake.

The premise applies equally no matter whether the forced carry allows for recovery or not-- they will be irrelevant to the accomplished long hitter, and punitive to everyone else.  That being said, forced carries with no chance of recovery are obviously the most punitive to the non-accomplished shorter hitter.  So I don't see that focusing on this type of forced carry is a problem.   After all many modern designers are focusing on the the deathtrap forced carry as well.

And whilst the point is raised about good players playing from longer markers also being short hitters at times, I haven't been witness for a very long time to a Paul Runyanesque pitch to a shorter tee from a low marker.

Perhaps the short hitting low marker can't reach the shorter tee . . .

. . . I don't see many examples of players picked up by the ears and forced to stand at a tee all day and empty balls into a 200+ yard abyss.

Really?  I would think that this dilemna would come up during members tournaments at some of these newer courses which feature forced carries . . . .  I imagine some solve the problem by having entire flights play from shorter tees so that the shorter players can avoid the scenario you describe above.  This doesnt seem like much of a solution to me.    

[T_MacWood]

Pat
The longest carry at ANGC would be the 12th, between 10 and 15 yards. I think you maybe confused with No. 15; it was fronted by a narrow stream in MacKenzie's day. The shot at the 12th would be roughly equivalent to an approach over the large bunker at the 10th.

Another consideration, the putter in MacKenzie's day had a fair amount of loft...relatively speeking. If you played the ball forward in your stance and opened the face slightly, you could pop the ball up in the air without much problem.

Bringing up ANGC is a strange choice in support of your arguement on this thread. Of all the famous golf courses in the world, has there been one more suited to the Rabbit than ANGC--unusually few hazards, little or no rough, very wide playing areas, almost unlimited choice and no unreasonable carries...unless you consider 15 yards an unreasonable carry? ANGC is the antithesis of what you are promoting.

It is my understanding the island tee CPC was the championship tee, the forward tee would not require a forty yard carry....in fact no carry at all.

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

My position on forced carries, which I mentioned a few times above, is that multiple tees or multiple carry distances should be used to accomodate all player abilities in a fairly commensurate way. On a course like Rustic Canyon I wouldn't go any farther than a maximum carry of 100 yards for the poorest player. I mentioned PVGC only as an example of a golf course that was not designed or built for the poor player and so even in 1913 there were a few minimum forced carries of up to 175 yards!

#14 at Rustic Canyon appears to have a forced carry for the poorest player of over 200 yards (at least that's what you seem to be saying). I don't think that's even remotely acceptable for a course like that. I distinctly remember standing out there and discussing that on that hole with Goeff Shackelford and Jim Wagner before the course was built although we were looking at the design drawing as the hole is now (without the exact tee placement). Geoff seemed to think if a poor golfer went way right the carry was acceptable but I don't know if we had a ruler to measure it and what that minimum carry was. I'd put another short tee in the middle of that wash making the carry to the short right side no more than 100 yards (if that's possible or allowable).

[A_Clay_Man]

While some designers and posters seem to think so, golf is not "currently configured"  to dictate the inclusion of excessive forced carries which are entirely irrelevant to all but the worst duffers.  

Shivas, DM et al, I can't get the 4th at Pebble Beach out of my mind reading this thread. The 185 froced carry is daunting and penal, and plays much longer than the actual yardage. If the grass area before that cross bunker was fairgreen, would it then lose it's forced status?

 How much of maintenance costs, are attributable to the use of "forced carries"?

[TEPaul]

A forced carry to me has got to be a "no shorter option" carry for all, and I definitely do not call playing to a shorter tee from a rear tee a "shorter option". Probably the most severe I'm aware of for decades is the 18th at Merion East. It may get even longer than it was just a couple of years ago and in my opinion a tournament committee has really got to keep a close eye on when a rear tee like the new one or proposed new one at Merion East's #18 is used. Personally, I'd never use it for anything to do with stroke play for even the US Amateur or the pros. The effective neutral wind carry out of the quarry from the tips will be around 260+ which could ratchet up to over 280 or more into a headwind. That's carry distance not total distance. If a guy like Nick Faldo tends to believe a percentage of even tour pros could struggle with that in certain conditions I, for one, would have to agree with him. Their options would be either non-existant or really stupid!

[Matt_Ward]

David M said, "Also Shivas, take a look at the photos that Matt posted recently of the Engh course in Colorado (I think.)  Golfers on that course may face a 200 yard forced carry on their second or third shots."

Your statement is in error.

There is allowance provided for players of varying ability and the carry is far from Herculean as you seem so intent on saying. How would I know? I was there to personally see it.

I agree with TEPaul regarding the use of additional tees to soften such situations -- but let's be clear you still have people who erroneously believe they can play from markers that don't support support their lack of skill. When people do that the issue comes down to them -- not the hole or course in question.

[A_Clay_Man]

Ahh the 17th at Kemper Lakes. Jordan Hirsh once lost a bet that he couldn't reach with a dozen. He quit trying on the eleventh ball, so he could have one to finish the course with.

[TEPaul]

It's about five pages into this thread and I'm still trying to figure out exactly what David Moriarty who started the thread is trying to say on this subject he calls "Forced carries...the new cop bunkers?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

The longest carry at ANGC would be the 12th, between 10 and 15 yards.

You mean the width of the creek.  The carry remains 125-140 yards.

On # 13, when standing in the middle of the fairway 200-250 from the center of the green, the forced carry is anywhere from 180 to 240 yards.

When standing in the fairway 200-250 yards, the forced carry is anywhere from 190 to 240 yards.[/color]

I think you maybe confused with No. 15; it was fronted by a narrow stream in MacKenzie's day.

I'm not confused at all, it wasn't a narrow stream as you suggest, it was a fairly wide body of water that fronted the green in 1935, which was MacKenzie's day.[/color]

The shot at the 12th would be roughly equivalent to an approach over the large bunker at the 10th.

They are not equivalent.
One is from a pronounced downhill sidehill lie the other from a flat tee.  One to a narrow sliver of a green with trouble long,
the other to a more open green with a flanking bunker rather then a bunker that ran from rough to rough.[/color]

Another consideration, the putter in MacKenzie's day had a fair amount of loft...relatively speeking. If you played the ball forward in your stance and opened the face slightly, you could pop the ball up in the air without much problem.
Today's putters have loft, especially ping putters.
If you could hit a lofted putter, you could hit other lofted clubs just as well, if not better.

SL Solow was incorrect, MacKenzie never said that the ideal golf course should be playable with a putter, he never stated that every hole should be playable with a putter, only that the ideal hole should be playable with a putter.  And, he infered that that was open to debate.[/color]

Bringing up ANGC is a strange choice in support of your arguement on this thread. Of all the famous golf courses in the world, has there been one more suited to the Rabbit than ANGC--unusually few hazards, little or no rough, very wide playing areas, almost unlimited choice and no unreasonable carries...unless you consider 15 yards an unreasonable carry? ANGC is the antithesis of what you are promoting.
Have you played there ?

If not, how are your above comments ...  credible ?

"no unreasonable carries"

The next time you watch the Masters, pay close attention to holes # 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18.[/color]

It is my understanding the island tee CPC was the championship tee, the forward tee would not require a forty yard carry....in fact no carry at all.

I was unaware that CPC had a seperate set of championship tees to go with the members tees and the forward tees.
Could you verify this for me ?

MacKenzie wanted the tee on a rock island, necessitating a forced carry, not disimilar from the previous three holes.

I also cited Pine Valley, NGLA, Merion and Maidstone in case you had forgotten[/color]

[T_MacWood]

I'm still looking for the wide body on the 15th. I think you may have confused the current 10th with the 10th in MacKenzie's day.

MacKenzie provided fairway short of all the streams you've mentioned...there is no requirement to carry the ball 125-140 yards or 180 to 240 yards or 190 to 240 yards....in fact it is foolish to believe the rabbit would even contemplate those longer carries over water. The 1st at St. Andrews is another example of short carry over a burn.

Why do you go to such extremes to make a point or to avoid claiming you are wrong? It is true MacKenzie only stated the ideal hole could be played with a putter, he never claimed he didn't design holes that didn't required a modest carry.

I've never played ANGC, and obviously you have...I won't hold that against you even though you are way off the mark in your understanding of the original design and MacKenzie's philosophies.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Whooooa--where did you get that??? Just look at the extreme width and even fairway melds between some holes!
My God, what have they done to that golf course!?!?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I'm very familiar with the above schematic.

Take a closer look at current # 10.
There is no forced carry as you claimed, absolutely no similarity between the approach to that hole and the approach to # 12 green, which is a forced carry.

Take a look at the approach to # 9, another forced carry.
The approach to # 18, another forced carry.

Playing golf from a schematic is a form of mental masturbation which you seem to enjoy.  I recall your debate with TEPaul and your interpretation of # 16 at GCGC based on a schematic made years and years after 1936, I believe it was in the 50's.

Would you show me in the schematic you posted how the golfer will get from the 13th fairway to the 13th green using a putter ?

Would you also show me how the golfer gets from # 12 tee to # 12 green with a putter ?  # 15 fairway to # 15 green ?
# 16 tee to # 16 green ??

All require forced carries.

The forced carries on # 12 and # 16 are finite.
The forced carries on # 13 and # 15 infinite.

For a more accurate depiction of the width of the creek fronting # 15, take a look at the photo of the creek, circa 1935 in David Owen's book, "The Making of the Masters".

Schematics are nice, but not always to perfect scale, or reality.

[T_MacWood]

Here is your "body of water"...I suggest the club dub it 'Mucci's Mouth'.

Re-read my comments regarding the tenth...I said an approach over the bunker, not the approach from the middle of the fairway. The rabbit often approaches from all sorts of odd angles....that why he is the rabbit. In fact all your long forced approach ideas are based upon the premise that the rabbit would attempt a shot of 150 yards or more over water, when he has a choice of laying up. You need to think like the rabbit if you are going to understand all the ramifications of golf architecture.

[Tags:]

Tags: