The Time Between Shot And Result Is The Key

[John Kirk]

I believe the most exciting shots in golf are the ones we wait the longest time to ascertain the result.  This applies to both long and short shots, sometimes in different ways:

Everyone enjoys and admires a powerful drive.  It flies for a long time, and in many cases, rolls for several seconds before coming to rest.  But if the drive is clearly in good shape, the anticipation of result is diminished, and the attention turns to the next play.

The same holds for approach shots.  A high shot in the direction of the flagstick or green is interesting as it flies, and all eyes await the final result.  But balls that immediately come to rest on a soft green are somewhat of a visual disappointment.

A drive or approach shot that disappears from sight holds our attention for a long time, as we anticipate the result for the entire walk until sighting the ball.  That's why I would make the case for the occasional blind shot off the tee.  Even a poor shot on any hole which disappears from sight evokes plenty of apprehension, or excitement, until the result is determined.

If the wind is blowing, then airborne shots are more interesting to follow, as we anticipate the wind's effect on the shot.

But shots along the ground are subject to more variation, and are of great interest.  To me, the most exciting shot to watch in golf is a putt or short shot that takes a very long time to arrive at the hole.  Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in.  That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.  And we like undulating chipping areas with firm turf, so we can see our shots roll out for a long time.

This also can explain why I don't like my ball to fly OB, or in a water hazard.  It's gone; the fun ends abruptly.

I thought this weekend about trying to develop my own little unified theory about golf course design, based on my belief that the excitement in golf is the anticipation of watching your ball come to rest, and the longer, the better.  Of course, there are some limitations.  Tapping a 3 footer downhill, and watching it trickle for 10 seconds 40 feet long would be exciting, but in a very aggravating way.  Some finesse is involved to make the game exciting, yet playable in a reasonable amount of time with appropriate difficulty.  That's where the artistry lies.

Is the course attractive?  Important.  Does the course offer me different playing options, and encourage me to hit different shots?  Really important.  But the greatest joy occurs between the stroke and the result, and the longer it takes, the better.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

A well-postulated, unified theory.

One corollary is that "firm and fast" is always superior according to this theory.

[Doug Siebert]

That's a very original and insightful idea!  As much fun as it is to watch a perfectly struck drive splitting the fairway fly, I do tend to turn away from them before they are even at their apex if I know its going to be in a good lie in the short grass when it ends up, either due to soft or level fairways.

I might argue that an approach that covers the flag and sticks within a foot or two does elicit a lingering look after it has stopped, whether hit by myself or by others, but maybe that's just because they are not particularly common, at least for me (Tiger probably lets Steve watch 'em for him)  Perhaps your point does still play into it because sometimes you'll see a ball that looks like it is 6" away end up being 12 feet away as you walk towards it and it slowly and depressingly leaves tap in range and moves past short putt and into medium range territory!

This is another point in favored of the rippled fairways look, because you gotta watch it land and bounce to make sure it stays on line, and even after it settles you sometimes suffer the same perspective problems that make those 12 footers look like tap ins, so you aren't quite sure how far you have left or what sort of stance you'll be playing from until you get pretty close to it.  Much more exciting than dropping drives down on the little colored 100 and 150 yard sticks some courses plant next to the yardage markers in the center of the fairway to make club selection easier on cartpath-only courses.  Kind of takes the anticipation out of it if I already know the club I'm using for my approach before I've picked up my tee!!!

[TEPaul]

Excellent post. Personally, I couldn't agree more. The fact that we live in a world of increasing "instant gratification" probably induces us to want everything "right in front of us" and to happen sooner rather than later. Max Behr did a short but excellent article on the benefits of blindness in golf architecture as a functional way of preventing increasing "instant gratification" as well as forcing golfers to trust their swings and their senses when hitting shots unaided by total visibility.

The ball running along the ground in various directions and sometimes taking it's sweet time about it is a wonderful thing indeed and too little seen today. If that massively breaking, slow rolling chip of Tiger Woods on the 16h hole of the Masters is not the best evidence of that I can't imagine what could be!

[George Pazin]

Very unique way of looking at it.

To further illustrate Tom D's theory, with F&F conditions, even a seemingly beautiful drive can bound into trouble, so you would be less likely to just bend down and grab your tee.

[Larry_Keltto]

John:

I enjoyed reading your theory, and I immediately thought of one of the most remarkable shots of my humble golfing life: a little 30-yard chip to the 8th hole at Sand Hills. The hole was on the left side, and the ball -- seemingly struck too firmly -- rolled onto the green front left, then began a remarkable, nearly 360-degree journey to the back of the left half of the green and then returned again to the middle of the left half, coming to rest a few feet from the hole. I was in awe of what the ball's roll had revealed regarding the character of the ground. A mundane chip had been transformed into a shot of a lifetime. I wish I knew how long I watched the ball travel; regardless, I'm still watching that shot now.

[Dan Herrmann]

John,
What a great idea.  And I think you're completely correct.

I was playing yesterday and had a 60 degree wedge shot that I needed to play from the fringe on the upper portion of a green complex to the lower portion (French Creek #3).  The total time of the shot from the time the ball was struck until it stopped must've been about 5 seconds.  And the ball was only in the air for about 1.5 seconds.  It was doing an AGNC #16-type roundabout.

Most fun shot of the day, and it was only a 30 foot shot.

[A_Clay_Man]

Hear hear. Concur with all the above and would add that it is the unexpected, the unpredictable that is the excitement in golf. Watching the high ball land within feet of it's expected landing area and then stay there is so rote.

To take it a step farther, Why is it that those who revel in having the ball stop within inches of the pin, on a regular basis, get so upset when they end-up with a ball in a just horrible predicament? It's preposterous to me to expect all the right bounces all the time.

In the words of the mosquito hunting Monty Pyton sketch, " Where's the sport in that?

[John_McMillan]

Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in.  That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.

But wouldn't the putt take even longer if the greens were maintained at a slower speed?

[JESII]

Nothing is better than a putt that rolls for 10 seconds and goes in.  That's why most here like fast greens with sloped surfaces.

But wouldn't the putt take even longer if the greens were maintained at a slower speed?

 

[A.G._Crockett]

This is exactly why so many of us dislike too many blind shots on a golf course; we are unable to appreciate the passage of time leading up to the result.  However, it also explains why the occasional blind shot well-struck is so exciting; we REALLY have to wait a long time to see an outcome that we suspect will be very good!

[ForkaB]

This is a really cool way of describing courses which are fast and firm AND have interesting humps and hollows.  However, if you want to call it THE key, you are eliminating most if not all of the "top 100" courses in the USA.  Do we need to be so harsh, or can we find a place in our hearts for the Cypress Points and Pine Valleys of the world?

[rgkeller]

Mr. Kirk,

Would it not follow that the only true test of golf course design is in the playing of said course?

[John Kirk]

Working my way up the list...

I certainly had firm and fast in mind when I wrote this.

A shot that covers the flag satisfies the theory, but the excitement is during the walk to the green  I often find myself zig zagging to the green on those shots, trying to see how close it really is.

Shots 5-10 yards offline are less interesting, because you generally know how far away it is.  A shot 15 feet right of the hole is a 15 footer if pin high, and a 22 footer if it's 5 yards short or long.  The player generally knows whether they have hit the ball the right distance.  Similarly, a shot 20 yards short leaves about a 20 yard shot, unless it's considerably off line.

With respect to blind shots, I generally prefer to see what I am doing around the green.  For this reason, I don't want to play a steady diet of elevated greens (see Patrick Mucci's "Are Elevated Greens Superior?" thread).  However, elevated greens test two very important skills, judging uphill shots and trusting your swing.  Sometimes the anticipating of results is so great that I can't finish the swing smoothly, making a variety of errors.  If successfully executed, then I'm anxiously walking up to see how my shot finished, or if I'm really interested, I'll run up there and watch it finish.

According to my theory, I like large green complexes, though not necessarily all large greens.  My ideal course is difficult enough so my approaches miss the greens regularly, so I am faced with a wide variety of challenges.

Good bounces and unfortunate bounces are about equally exciting.  In either case, both the player and his partners let out an "Ohhhhhh!  Did you see that?".  Both pretty exciting.  I've grown to enjoy this part of golf immensely.  My home course, Pumpkin Ridge, has very few unpredictable bounces.

Fast greens allow for longer duration putts.  Let's take putts with equal initial velocity on a slow green and a fast one.  The fast green offers less resistance to the ball, and the ball rolls longer in distance and time.  I'm trying to explain this soemhow...trust me, fast greens make for longer putts timewise.

Thanks for responding.

[George Pazin]

Rich -

Why would Pine Valley be eliminated? I was under the impression that the green contours created many such shots, and that it is generally kept firm and fast.

[ForkaB]

George

I've always thought that PV's challenges were in hitting your drive to position A on relatively flat fairways, and getting your line and length right on your approach to relatively small greens.  If there is more movement out there than I have surmised form others' accounts (I am a virgin ) then I am wrong, and very, very sorry.....

Cheers

Rich

[JESII]

For me, wind is a key ingredient to this anticipation. I agree that it goes without saying that firm conditions are required to maximize the 'time' of a shot, and when you have both, on a links course for example, you're in for a real treat.

One of the purest pleasures of the game for me is seeing a ball travel along the ground for an extended period only to stop close to the intended target.

[John Kirk]

I have not played either Cypress Point or Pine Valley.  My architecture education is incomplete to say the least.  Based on remarks here, sounds like Pine Valley is moderately firm, but Cypress  is quite soft year round.  Both courses look stunningly beautiful, and both offer good playing options.  Cypress has wind to contend with.  PV is coveted for its great green complexes, among other things.

But I regularly tell people I can't imagine that golf at Pebble Beach is as exciting as playing in Bandon, because of the firm turf.  Let's imagine you've hit a nice iron down into the landing area on #4 Bandon Dunes.  You've got 150 yards downhill, and the wind is crossing at 15-20 miles per hour.  From experience I know it's only a little pitching wedge, and I start it out about 5-10 yards right of the green.  Bounce, bounce, bounce, roll.  That's exciting to me.

By the way, Rich, I have played Dornoch once or twice.  It was a "Eureka!" moment in my golf life.  What a place.

The Masters is consistently one of the best tournaments each year, because we ge these wonderful shots that take forever to come to rest.  I expect Pinehurst (haven't played there either)  to deliver another great US Open this year.

Mr. Keller,

I think you're right.  How can you tell if it's fun to play, unless you play it?  There are certainly visual and tactile signals, but nothing replaces playing the shots.

[George Pazin]

Fast greens allow for longer duration putts.  Let's take putts with equal initial velocity on a slow green and a fast one.  The fast green offers less resistance to the ball, and the ball rolls longer in distance and time.  I'm trying to explain this soemhow...trust me, fast greens make for longer putts timewise.

I think the key to your statement is how fast putts slow down on slower greens. If you have 30 foot putts on different speed greens, you may have to charge one and trickle the other.

Rich -

I haven't had the pleasure, either. You may be right about the fairways, but I would think the greens compensate more than adequately. I recall more than a few hole descriptions from Tom P, Jamie, etc., where they described a somewhat circuitous approach to the hole.

I remember turning on The Golf Channel late one night and seeing a black and white golf course. They were on a par 3 green, and the contours were so bold that I immediately thought, that has to be PV. Sure enough, it was the Nelson v. Littler WWOG episode from back in the 50s. I strongly encourage everyone to watch it if it's on, or go buy the tape.

[Ted Kramer]

John,

Great post. I agree with your thinking and I'm impressed with the fact that you were able to pin down that aspect of golf, I never would have been able to come up with your idea.

Bethpage Black #13.
After a solid drive I had about 240 to the green.

There is a very well designed bunker on #13 that can be confusing to someone who hasn't played the course enough times to remember that there is about 20 yards between this cross bunker and the green - it looks like a greenside bunker, but it isn't.

I figured I needed to fly the ball about 215 or so to clear the bunker and figured it was worth a shot. I hit a solid rescue club that I followed every inch of the way . . .I just couldn't tell if it had enough to clear the bunker. It turns out that the shot did clear the bunker and wound up on the green . . .

I hit that shot about 3 years ago. And it is one of the most memorable of my life . . . and until I read this post I'm not sure that I understood why. It wasn't because I hit the green in two, but now that I think about it, it is probably because I haven't hit many 240 yard shots that I had to watch for every second in order to figure out whether I was in good or bad shape . . .

Great post!
-Ted

[James Bennett]

Ted

I think you have just merged John's time issue with that of the heroic carry.  We can all hit a great shot down the middle, and bend over to pick up the tee.  But who remembers that?  Whereas the full shot, taking on a hazard at the edge of our capability (accuracy or length) engages us for some time - much more memorable, even when we fail.

Ditto for the firm and fast, and undulating greens.  Our greens get very fast (up to 13 feet, but not through choice) in August (our winter) through minimal growth, but somehow run true.  I still recall the downhill 30 foot putt last year that took forever to get to the hole, but I thought was in with 20 feet to go.  Oh, the delirious joy from watching the oppositions' pain for such an extended period.  Makes me look forward to the middle of winter coming soon.

[Doug Siebert]

Nice find, Sean!  I was the one who brought this up recently, because I've been thinking about it ever since and I become ever more convinced of its infallibility.

I'd have to say this thread of John's was the most thought provoking thing I've ever read on RSG, so right now I'd nominate it for "post of the millenium" on RSG.  Even though I only joined in fall 2002, so if something more insightful was written before that, please point me at it

[Scott Witter]

John & Doug:

I don't remember ever seeing this post, though I am now fortunate to have stumbled across it, but without question, John's original post is certainly an engaging statement and one of the more thought provoking written here. Hopefully, all those lurking and interested in architecture will gain from this.  It truly says a lot for the experience, the game and the subtle, but very satisfying enjoyment we can all extract from watching this little white ball roll across the landscape.

Thanks for this profound thought John K.

[Bill_Yates]

This post is brilliant!  It brings all of us to the heart of the game - when we play, we want our emotions to be engaged.  We are discovering that it is the course and its design, and the way that design engages our emotions, that we love.

When a ball is in the air, lands and sticks like a dart in a dartboard, we don't have the same attachment to the course (either physical or psychological) that we do when the ball is running along the ground.  When conditions are firm and fast and we can play shots on the ground, the very course itself (credit the architect) literally becomes an ingredient of our game, our success and our emotions.  In trying to find the slopes and angles that will help us to get the ball close to the hole, we also discover that we are either as clever as the architect or not.  And watching the ball follow the course we set it on, keeps us participating intellectually and emotionally even after the stroke has been made.

I believe like many of you that it is the creativitiy that is required and the serendipity that results from playing courses that have fairways and greens with what we call "character", that makes some courses great and truly "fun" to play.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know if I can find an exception for Cypress Point within this theory, but I believe Pine Valley fits it well.

The truth about Pine Valley is that you don't REALLY know the result of your last shot until you get up to your ball and see what the lie is.  You can slice into a bunker and be okay, or you can miss a green by two feet and have absolutely no play.

This is also true of St. Andrews ... often you can't see exactly where your drive has gone and even then you may have to be standing over it before you understand how your last shot has really affected your next one.

I know that's not what John was talking about with his original statement but I think he will find it's true of other courses he enjoys, too.