Risk without reward

[Mike Dickson]

This has been a thought that has been nagging me for the past few days.

Is it reasonable for the architect to present a risky alternate shot to the golfer that has no valueable/significant advantage, or none at all?  I'd be interested in some examples and for some thoughts on the merits and problems with this concept.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

William Flynn at times used dogleg holes to disguise a typical risk-reward by placing a bunker in the corner of the dogleg.  Most times golfers would think to cut the corner by carrying the bunkers and risking the trees they would be rewarded with an ideal angle into the green.  Flynn designed a number of dogleg holes where the outside of the dogleg is the ideal landing zone based upon topography and/or the green complex.

It would only take a time or two to figure it out. Why do you think he did something like this?  A byproduct is that it certainly adds effective yardage to the scorecard yardage.

[Mike Dickson]

It would only take a time or two to figure it out. Why do you think he did something like this?

Thanks for the example Wayne.  I figure that Flynn did this for several reasons:

1) To give the player with local knowledge and experience an advantage, especially against a player better than himself

2) To reward strategy and planning instead of skill and power

3) To mix up the flow of a design.  Too often players become mechanized and robotic.  They have simple rules governing their strategy: cut every corner, advance the ball as far as possible, and that hazards are placed to protect a stategic spot.  Flynn's tactic is very efficient against such simple ideas.


Are there any problems with the concept of risk with no reward?

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I too, believe Flynn did these sorts of fake-outs for the reasons you describe.  I don't think there's a problem with this at all.  Flynn employed perceptual tricks and design tricks to challenge the mental/strategic side of the sport, which he felt was so important.    

Rolling Green Golf Club is a course where he did the reverse dogleg concept on a majority of the dogleg holes (2,5,12,17 and 18) with only one dogleg (15) where the reward is to cut the corner.

[Joel_Stewart]

At Olympic Clubs Ocean course their is a par 4 dogleg left that if you cut the dogleg over a huge church pew bunker there is no advantage and maybe even a disadvantage.  The hole designed by Tom Weiskopf, would be 55 yards in versus say 100-110 yards hitting over a bunker.  

[John_McMillan]

Is it reasonable for the architect to present a risky alternate shot to the golfer that has no valueable/significant advantage, or none at all?

These features are present on all golf courses - they are called hazards.  Very seldom may a golfer obtain an advantage by striking a ball out of bounds, or into a water hazard.  The penalties associated with these shots make them very risky.

[TEPaul]

"Is it reasonable for the architect to present a risky alternate shot to the golfer that has no valueable/significant advantage, or none at all?  I'd be interested in some examples and for some thoughts on the merits and problems with this concept."

Mike:

Personally, I think if an architect can do that and do it well (keep the con, so to speak) it's not only a reasonable thing to do, it's a wonderful thing to do---eg total deception, in other words. If an architect can design something that can continually get golfers year after year to use a tempting high risk option that either has no reward or better yet may even be subtely to his disadvantage then that architect is really good---really clever, in my book.

One should never forget that really good golf course architect both can and perhaps should be, at its best, a bit of a chess game between player and architect. Ultimately and foremost a really good architect is trying to get golfers to think really well before they pull the trigger.

And the best way, in my opinion, to see if golfers are thinking well is to try to fake them out first with the decisions they make! If an architect can do something that continues to fake golfers out year after year that they still can't figure out I think that architect may be on his way to being an architectural genius

Very fine question!

We have a tremendous example of that at my course by Perry Maxwell.

[RJ_Daley]

Personally, I think if an architect can do that and do it well (keep the con, so to speak) it's a wonderful thing to do---eg total deception, in other words. If and architect can design something that can continually get golfers year after year to use a tempting high risk option that either has no reward or better yet may even be subtely to his disadvantage then that architect is really good---really clever.

The design idea that fits your described risk decision in which the risk temptation keeps sucking them in, yet punishes them severely for the slightly mishit attempt at the risk shot would be:

A shorter par 5 with a second shot to a big run-up front, but skylined green that is large, appealing, and either runs away to a severe bunker rearward not seen, or is maintained firm and runs front to back to a very steep back fall off that just is not seen due to skyline of the big inviting plateaued green.  Thus, unless you hold the green either by the perfect run-up landing short and bounding on to stop on the green, or can stick the long iron or FW metal to hold (which is not likely) you get even worse consequences than if you just took a cheap and easy lay-up for a pitch to play to the green in 3 regulation and try to make a putt.

Therefore, deception of big inviting greens with the subtlty of run-away contouring and or plateaus, that tend to skyline and hide the rear of that green, or hide the rearward hazard or at least mask its severity.  

Langford has such a green at Lawsonia, and soon I'll be taking a great golfer (Brad Swanson) and I can't wait to see how he'll do on it.  The double plateau 2nd at Blue Mound CC by Seth Raynor is another such example.  

[ForkaB]

Sean

At lunch on Friday, Craig Disher mentioned to me that the 16th at Littlestone was the template for one of CB McDonald's most famous Lido holes (can't remember the name).  Apparently the fairway was once mown all the way across to beyond/behind the left hand bunker, so if you tried for the carry you were very much rewarded with a shorter shot and a flat lie straight into the heart of the green.

PS-the hole is 469, and into the prevailing wind (as you know)......

[wsmorrison]

Rich,

The 16th at Littlestone is the Channel Hole which was the inspiration for the 4th at Lido.  Rather than a bunker to carry to a risk/reward landing spot that offered a better approach, the Lido had water.  Flynn built a conceptual Channel Hole at Opa-Locka (NLE) in Florida where the risky landing area was within an undulating sandy waste area.  The fairway was about 50-yards wide on the 480-yard par 5 hole and gave an opportunity to reach the green in 2 shots as the entire green complex including the opening was oriented towards the risk fairway.  Hazards along the safe fairway and a right bunker fronting the green made the safer tee shot approach more difficult.  It would have made a great par 4 today.

Another bit of deception practiced by Flynn was how he presented greens on steeply downhill par 3 holes.  On the 3rd at Rolling Green and the 4th at Cascades the overall topography is downhill.  By slightly breaking the overall decline with a green that is slightly perched in the back (but still runs front to back) the effect on perception is to think the green runs back to front.  The use of top lines of bunkers that are higher in the rear and lower in the front enhance the effect at Rolling Green.  I've seen some top amateurs get fooled.  They are often way long on putts from front to back and not realizing the true slope are often short on the back to front.  You can stand almost anywhere on the green and not realize it by sight.  Throw in a sharp right to left break and the green is very difficult to figure out.