[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I think the beauty of the 6th hole is that all of the information the golfer needs in order to determine how to play the hole, is available from the tee.  Success depends upon how thoroughly the golfer examines what you've layed out in front of them, and, how realistically they evaluate their game and their ability to hit a variety of shots.

Before hitting the drive you can recognize the approach shots available to you, based on the end position of your drive.

It seemed that most golfers fail to factor in the location of the pin when deciding how to play their drive.

A back pin, especially a back left pin makes any approach from the left very difficult, even if the golfer is the master of the low, run-up, duck hook, a shot that TEPaul has perfected.

Unfortunately, he perfected that shot involuntarily, and can only hit it, when he feels pressured to perform.  He remains unable to hit it at will.  You will notice, when playing with him, that the caddies always go down the right side of the fairway,
except for one caddy at Gulph Mills, James Jones, affectionately refered to as Bean Head Jones, or Helmet head Jones.  It should also be noted that TEPaul's liability premiums also doubled this past year, in no small part due to Bean Head Jones's refusal to walk down the right side of the fairway.
The CaddyMaster now requires all caddies to sign releases when they are selected to tote TE's bag.

I thought that # 6 wasn't overpowering, but required a strategic examination of the features, coupled with ones realistic assessment of their ability to hit a variety of shots.
The wind, and a players ability to execute successfully in the wind, is also a material factor.  I liked the hole a great deal.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Shivas,

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Don't let that snake charmer, Dan Kelly, lead you down the path to damnation.

Being the ever so thoughtful and resourceful contrarian, he is trying to use the logic of one golf hole and apply it across the board.

Take Dan's example of #16 at CPC. I would argue that the feelings of temptation, confusion, whatever you want to call it are there for the tournament and non-tournament golfer. It's just that during a tournament you have a lot more on the line.

Even if almost every casual golfer goes for it only to come up short, they still feel the emotions. That's great architecture whether it's tournament or non-tournament golf.

TTK

[DMoriarty]

Guys, this is a very interesting thesis that our friend Mr. Kelly has thrown out to us:  could it be that great architecture comes out in tournament play, play that matters, non-friendly play?  It seems to me that this idea runs contrary to a position that many here take, ie, that what matters in architecture is everyday play, not toonamint play.  

If we take Dan's suggested thesis as true, I am concerned that the logical outgrowth is that the penal style has more merit than many here would want to believe.  Perhaps all this glowing talk of strategy and choices and options and all the other backhanded slaps at penal architecture apply only to friendly games.  

But if great architecture comes through when screwing up costs you dearly, perhaps golf is really all about "whatever you do, don't hit it there!", ie, the penal school.  

Sorry to drop this great thread.  I've been beating my head against a wall, and lost touch.

Shivas.  I don't get your jump all the way to the "penal school" from the premise that many better golfers play more aggessively in "friendly matches" than in tournamentscall it the "16 theory."  
   I would think that architects could exploit this tendency of better golfers by building holes with options that would allow the thinking golfer to hang with the aggressive golfer in everyday play.  No one likes to lose, even in every day play.  

Could you please explain it a little bit.  

[Dan Kelly]

Yes, Shivas, could you explain that -- because I don't think your "logical outgrowth" is what I'm saying at all!

I don't believe that I'm advocating penal architecture. I don't intend to be advocating penal architecture -- certainly not exclusively penal architecture, to the exclusion of "strategic" architecture.

I believe that I'm advocating this position: The greatness of golf architecture most clearly reveals itself in tournament play, when all of the options come into play, when -- from the tee through the green -- the price of overaggressiveness and overcaution must be given equal consideration.  

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

The way we (you) were?  Forgive me for "bumping" this thread.

I was meandering through the forum so to speak and came across, in my opinion, a "hidden gem". The premise is very interesting and the debate enlightening. I thought that relative newbies to the site might find this thread instructive. I certainly did. Nothing gets resolved but the content is very thought provoking.

Have the modern, latter day architects used ".... confusion (as) the essence of great golf-course architecture?" Have The Minimalists acceded to Dan Kelly's premise over the last decade?

Thanks to Dan Kelly for this and he tended towards thinking "unsettledness" was a neater description than confused. All good stuff.

Cheers Colin

[Bill_McBride]

I think the problem with championship level golf today is that the players are too long and in many cases too straight for choice to be an option.  Only when you get to a fast and firm - and windy - links course does choice play that much of a role.  That's why the Open Championship is so much fun every year, and courses like Atlanta Athletic Club are pretty boring.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()