The "two shot combination" in architecture!?

[TEPaul]

Mark Brown (who's been producing some unbelievbly thoughtful posts on here recently, in my opinion) on post #36 of the "Sportsman's Carry" thread mentioned the two shot combination of clearing HHA on #7 PV.

Basically, that 100 yd long cross-bunker on #7 was the central conceptual ingredient to what Tillinghast felt was the true "Three shotter" in golf! The result of the entire hole, in his opinion, revolved soley around that "two shot combination"! If any golfer couldn't or didn't successfully accomplish those first two shots there should be no way at all, in his opinion, that any golfer could reach that green in THREE!

Off a less than good drive on that hole (PVGC's #7) the crunch time of whether to try to carry over HHA is sort of the essence of the hole.

The only problem I can see with that concept, at least in the perception of most golfers and golf analysts, is if a player decides not to attempt the carry it leaves him with what most consider a sort of ridiculous "nothing shot" of sort of chipping the ball near the front of HHA and going from there. And of course from there it is impossible to reach the green in three shots (or on that next shot).

What do you all think of that kind of architectural arrangement? Is it a good one or not?

[Ted Kramer]

I have never seen the hole but based on my understanding . . .

I think it is an excellent design.
Good shots are rewarded and poor shots are punished.
The good shots do not need to be incredible shots in order to be rewarded while the poor shot is not punished too severely.

Playing that "nothing shot" is more than acceptable to me as a punishment for a poorly struck drive.

-Ted

[ForkaB]

My guess is that if this were a hole with a 100 yard water carry instead of 100 yards of "natural" scrubland we'd be dissing and dismissing it as thoughtless and medicore.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Good question.

I believe that the real trick comes in the length of the required shots. If only the golfers who belt it out there 300+ can make the carry for the second, then I think the hole is weakened. On the other hand, if the required quality of the drive is of a reasonably attainable length (and position), then the hole is strengthened.

The 'nothing' shot only really sucks when you never had a chance to begin with. To me, this is exactly the problem with Tom McBroom's #11 in PEI. The fact is that most golfers just can't hit it close enough to the marsh - again a very large hazard requiring a long carry. This leaves most of us with the nothing shot EVEN when we hit a drive as purely as we're capable of.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I love the concept as it encourages some furhter use of strategy, especially on the hole mentioned.
I mean you stand on that tee, thinking  I want to hit driver..but if I miss the fairway I am dead..but if I hit the 3 wood will that be long enough for me to carry HHA with my next shot...great mental stuff..
BUT  I also agree with Rich..if it was just a man made pond..such as #18 at Torrey Pines, I would not be as enthusiastic about it.
Hence, I love the concept..but it can easily be abused.

[JESII]

Agree on the above opinions.

The other factor that makes this far superior to the water hazard use is that the player that does not think /know they will be able to make the carry even on their third have the option to play up into HHA and take their chances on a lie. I believe PV is maintaining their sand to a point where one has a better chance of getting a playable lie than perhaps 10-20 years ago.

The "two-shot combination" design philosophy is more widely used than we might think, but the penalty for achieving the total distance is much lower on the courses I can think of than it is at PV #7.

Shinnecock #5
Shinnecock #16 on the left leaving the best angle

[BCrosby]

HHA poses risks of execution, but I'm not sure it poses a lot of interesting shot choices. If a decent player gets off the tee in good shape, he will try to carry HHA with his second. Invariably. If not, he doesn't.

I would prefer HHA closer to the green. I have in mind the absolutely perfect placement of the cross bunker on the 17th at Muirfield. It is located about 150 yrds from the green. It is a nasty slit bunker that makes it virtually impossible to advance the ball. But a layup short of the bunker is a real option. From 175 yards, there is a reasonable chance of reaching the green with your third. (It's nonetheless a tough shot. The green is guarded by a couple of big mounds, as I recall.)

In short, HHA comes too early in the hole for my taste. It's location has the effect of pre-determining the juicy go/no go choices on great par fives.

Bob

P.S. On the other hand, HHA is absolutley astounding to see. It's truly wild. And hard to forget.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In presenting an architectural examination of a golfers game, what is wrong with testing his ability to adequately execute two consecutive shots ?

Anyone can hit a good shot, but can you do it in succession ?

Failure to do so doesn't cause a bogie or worse to be the default option, it just puts more pressure on the need to hit two more good shots in succession if one is to make par.

So the architect is giving the golfer two bites at the apple, two seperate design features that will test his ability to hit two good shots in succession, at the begining, or end of the hole.

It's a very clever concept.

[Tyler Kearns]

Tillinghast wrote, and I think it is very appropritate when discussing the strategy of Pine Valley #7, "very frequently the designers of holes have considered length alone, ignoring the relation each stroke should bear to the others".

BCrosby,

I do not agree universally with your point that if one hits a poor drive that the decision on the subsequent stroke is set in stone. Presently it is about 435 yards from the new back tee to the other side of Hell's Half Acre. If the golfer knocks his drive into the rough, but some 240-260 yards off the tee, a lot will depend on the lie. Nothing is more exhilirating than trying a heroic carry over a fearsome hazard, and the threat of compounding one's initial errors is ever-prsesent.

TK

[Mark Brown]

TE, coming from you that is truly an honor. I've enjoyed and learned quite a lot from the GCA discussions. Don't know why it took me so long to get here.

On PV7 I tend to agree with moving HHA closer to the green so a lay-up would require about a 200 yard approach. Or how about extending a 20 yard wide fairway around the right sight of HHA to shoot for, offering 3 options - what a quandry.That may be sacreligious but I love recovery and risk-reward options when they require an exceptional shot.

However, I also love a short do or die par three such as
the DVA at PV and the 8th -- what a great hole, and short-par fours like the one that draws the Tour pros crazy at the TPC at Scottsdale(?)

Thanks

[TEPaul]

Tyler Kearns said:

" If the golfer knocks his drive into the rough, but some 240-260 yards off the tee, a lot will depend on the lie."

Tyler:

You should know there is probably less actual "rough" at PV than any other course in the world. If a tee shot on #7 actually gets into the rough without being completely restricted by trees that golfer would be a most accurate and lucky man!

[TEPaul]

MarkB:

Funny that you should mention something perhaps to the right of HHA that would be a high risk proposition to successfully do off a somewhat missed drive on PV's #7 to get yourself on fairway grass with a shot at the green in three off a very long shot. I thought of the same basic idea earlier today but didn't mention it to do with PV's 7th since it's not a good idea to suggest such changes to a hole on a course that has the "super respect" and "time in play" that PV does. But on another course I think that would be a great addition and "wrinkle" and you're right, it certainly would serve to increase options.

However, that kind of thing completely goes against the "conceptual grain" of what Tillinghast spoke about in his chapter on the "true three shotter"!

And that was that in no case should a "true three shotter" be reached in two shots. Tillinghast's reason was most interesting. It basically all had to do with the green design. He said a "true three shotter" basically should REQUIRE (ie demand) two really full bore long shots to get within range of a shortish shot to the green for which the green was designed, and that it was virtually impossible for an architect to design a green calling for a shortish iron while at the same time having the green able to receive a really long shot.

He basically said---in this context, the architect just cannot 'serve two masters'!

But I like your thought a lot on some other really long par five with a basic HHA concept, just not at PVGC. I like it a lot and as a total concept for the "true three shotter" never to be reached by a really long shot, what the hell did Albert W. Tillinghast really know anyway?  

Not a bad question actually, since Tillinghast may've been a liar, and a hypocrite. Ask Tom MacWood about that because he's convinced that Tillie sold his architectural principles to the PGA of America in the mid 1930s!  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Tillinghast was a brilliant architect, and like the rest of us, he had his human flaws. Personally, I think it makes him more interesting and appealing.

You need to take off your Philadelphia rose colored goggles.

[Tyler Kearns]

TEPaul,

Fair enough, I was unaware that this was the case at Pine Valley. However, as a concept, the Hell's Half Acre would work well on another site, or course that did maintain an actual cut of rough that would lead to the conundrum I described.

TK

[TEPaul]

"TE
Tillinghast was a brilliant architect, and like the rest of us, he had his human flaws. Personally, I think it makes him more interesting and appealing. You need to take off your Philadelphia rose colored goggles."

Tom MacWood:

I think you'll find that I firmly believe that a man like Tillinghast certainly did have plenty of flaws---hence my joking about him and "flask architecture" for years!   I don't know that I exactly subscribe to Phil Young's new theory that "bi-polarism" is the EXACT historically correct way to look at a man like Tillinghast and his times.

But you are the one who has broached this idea that Tillinghast sold out his architectural principles to the PGA of America by going around the country removing certain bunkers and I feel you have not even come close to making that rather denigrating case about him selling out his architectural principles (eg recommending things he really didn't believe in).

You should simply recognize that like many of our architects in modern times, many to most of those old architects did go to the courses of others and recommend changes and redesign. Did that mean they were selling out their architectural principles? Not to me it didn't---it simply meant they felt the were recommending improvements to those courses, just the way many of today's architects feel. Do you think today's architects who recommend changes and redesigning feel they are doing things they shouldn't be doing or don't believe in? They most likely do believe in them. Because you or I might not agree with those changes and redesigns is not the same things as those architects selling out their architectural principles. However, I have little doubt at this point that this may be a distinction you either do not see or have little understanding how to make!

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
......However, as a concept, the Hell's Half Acre would work well on another site, or course that did maintain an actual cut of rough that would lead to the conundrum I described."

Tyler:

Definitely!

[T_MacWood]

"You should simply recognize that like many of our architects in modern times, many to most of those old architects did go to the courses of others and recommend changes and redesign."

Is that what he was doing with his duffer's headache formulaic approach? I'm not a real big fan of that formula...most great architects before (including himself) or after, thankfully, didn't follow that approach either. If you like the formula (and the fact thousands of bunkers were lost), you're entitled to your opinion.

By the way the thread regarding Tilly compomising due to unfortunate circumstances was started by Mike Cirba, not me. Evidently Mike never got fitted for the goggles.

[TEPaul]

"You need to take off your Philadelphia rose colored goggles."

Tom MacWood:

On the contrary! What I need to do is continue to point out where I truly feel some of the things you suggest are simply not true.

This suicide thing of Crump's is definitely one of them. I'm not asking youj to reveal any sources---all I'm asking you to do is explain your theory or opinion in detail of why you think it would make any difference to the membership of PVGC and Crump's friends that his sudden death was a result of a gunshot wound rather than poison from a tooth abscess. And furthermore, why it's your opinion that a suicide would make all of them construct this "tooth abscess" story to cover-up a suicide and thereby glorify the man's contribution to PVGC in an attempt to minimize Colt's contribution.

You simply refuse to respond other than the recent two word non-explanation of; "Human nature".

If you think this is only about human nature you sure don't have a very good opinion of human nature! He died suddenly, they were all shocked at that fact but they were all aware what he did at PV and how much of his time and effort he poured into that place. The manner of his death could logically have little or nothing to do with  their feeling about what he did there.

I don't think I need to take off any rose colored glasses---I think it's you who need to find some really good glasses that may enable you to learn how to interpret, make logical assumptions and conclusion with some of the very impressive material you tend to turn up.

Again, I ask you to explain in detail why you believe a Crump suicide rather than death from a tooth abscess would make any difference to these things I've mentioned (and you've mentioned). I feel you're attempting to float some serious "revisionism" of the creation and evolution of PV and the perception of it by Crump's friends and the club's members. If you continue to avoid answering this question I can only conclude that you're hiding from us and acting pretty cowardly on this issue.

[TEPaul]

"Is that what he was doing with his duffer's headache formulaic approach? I'm not a real big fan of that formula...most great architects before (including himself) or after, thankfully, didn't follow that approach either. If you like the formula (and the fact thousands of bunkers were lost), you're entitled to your opinion."

Tom MacWood:

You actually may be getting warmer regarding understanding what I'm trying to say to you here--and that last paragraph may be great evidence of it. It's not about whether or not you or me are a big fans of what Tillinghast did in the 1930s---it's about what he felt he was doing. You've stated you feel he was selling out HIS architectural prinicples by what he was doing.

Perhaps what you should have said (which actually would be accurate) is Tillinghast was selling out YOUR architectural prinicples!

Honest to God, Tom MacWood, when it comes to interpreting some of this stuff in an accurate historical context you really are a total disaster area, in my opinion!

[TEPaul]

"By the way the thread regarding Tilly compomising due to unfortunate circumstances was started by Mike Cirba, not me. Evidently Mike never got fitted for the goggles. "

In my opinion, what Mike Cirba was attempting to do is to prove that the things that many of those great old architects were doing back then by changing and redesigning the golf courses of others was really not much different from what many of today's architects do!

And that's an excellent point, in my opinion---and I believe it is true. Mike Cirba, it seems to me, was attempting to say perhaps we today are too ready and willing to GLORIFY those old architects by not admitting that many of the things they did aren't any different than the things many of today's architects do!

Does that mean they were selling out the prinicples they believed in? It doesn't mean that to me----that was your take on this with what you said about Tillinghast!

[Paul_Turner]

I think the fact that HHA is scrub rather than water is the whole point, no?  It's a hell of a carry but at least you have a chance of a great recovery shot.

It's a bit like the 8th at Brancaster.  But this hole is even better and the carry is over scrubby marshland.  It's a better hole because the weaker player can play diagonally along the edge of Brancaster's version of HHA.  (see Anatomy of a Golf Course for a drawing)

[TEPaul]

"It's a bit like the 8th at Brancaster.  But this hole is even better and the carry is over scrubby marshland.  It's a better hole because the weaker player can play diagonally along the edge of Brancaster's version of HHA."

Paul;

Better for whom? As you well know, PV was not conceived or designed for the "weak player'.

'A prominent Philadelphia businessman with whom Crump was playing plugged his ball in the face of one of the deepest bunkers. Short and stout, he struggled to the top of the hazard and called down, "George, why in the name of common sense did you build these bunkers so high? If I fall off here, I'll break my neck".'

Replied Crump;

"Now you've got it. We build them so high that the dub golfers would all break their necks. This is a course for champions and they never get in trouble."

[Paul_Turner]

Better for everyone!

[TEPaul]

"Better for everyone!"

Paul:

It's a good thought, a very democratic thought, some architects even called it "ideal". Do you think that should be done in architecture all the time and everywhere? Because if that's the way it always was then we would never have had a Pine Valley! Or don't you care about that? If Colt really did design that place as you obviously can't stop thinking he did---what in God's name was he thinking then?

[TEPaul]

redanman:

I've been to and played Plainfield a number of times the last one being in the Compher Cup. I know the golf course.