The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots

[Tim_Weiman]

The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots

We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”.

Now, this point has been argued back and forth many times. David apparently still thinks his statement makes sense, though he seems to want to substitute the word “interest” for “challenge” as if this would have great significance. But, I still believe what David said makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, I believe it has nothing to do with whether one has seen the course. The simple fact is that any course that is really Top Ten “sixty yards and in” would have to be considered a serious candidate for Top 100 material overall.

Geoffrey Childs, getting a bit tired of my insistence on this point, asked if there was a “quantitative” case that could be made to support my view and refute David Wigler’s original assertion. Actually, I think the case might be fairly simple to make. The key elements are:

How many tee shots are there?

One might be quickly tempted to say 18, of course. But, I’ll argue the 14 is a better number. Most golf courses have about 4 par 3s and regardless of how long the hole actually is, the essence of any par 3 is the entire green complex or “sixty yards and in”.

How many shots to play all 18 holes?

I’m actually not aware of any evidence that the average score for 18 holes of golf is much less than 100. But, being in a good mood, I’ll be generous and assume it takes 84 shots to play 18 holes, exactly the mid point between the scratch man shooting 72 and the 24 handicapper shooting 96.

What percent are tee shots?

This is simple math: 14 tee shots divided by 84 total shots equals 17 percent.

What percent of golfers are “skilled”?

We could debate this question at length. When I asked a few people who have been around the game, the consensus seemed to be that about 1 to 3 percent of all golfers could be considered “skilled”. But, why be so harsh? Let’s just be more agreeable and assume that 10 percent of all golfers could be considered “skilled”.

Skilled Golfers Tee Shots As Percent of All Golf Shots:

Here again we have simple math. The percent of all golf shots that are tee shots by skilled golfers is (17 percent times 10 percent): 1.7 percent.

Why Worry About Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots?

When an architect builds a golf course, he can expect less than 2 percent of all shots played to be tee shots by skilled players. That figure is dwarfed by the percentage of shots within sixty yards by skilled and unskilled players alike.

So, maybe there’s a reason for strong “interest” – haven’t we heard that word before? – for tee times at Rustic Canyon. Maybe the project team figured out that testing skilled players off the tee was of such minor importance that it wasn’t worth worrying about.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Lumping all shots into the same category weakens your argument, field shots are different than putts.  
The scratch golfer is looking at 28 field shots per your 14 hole example and the bogey golfer about 35. This is 50% for the scratch player and 40% for the bogey player.
The percentage of players at various handicap levels is known but cannot be applied throughout the world of golf, i.e. a place like Bloomingdale in Valrico, fla. has an inordinate amount of single digit players. A course like RC that demands less(if true) from the tee is aimed at a different market. If a course wants to attract the better player than it will accomodate him with, at least, superior positioning resulting in prime angles in or eventually the place will lose this market.

How much does the new car smell and the low fees add to the demand for tee times?
 
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

Try making birdie when your tee shot sails out of bounds.

If the green complex demands an approach from a given angle or position, then, offensively, the golfer is dependent upon the tee shot to get him to that position/angle, and, defensively, to avoid the pitfalls that can confront an errant tee shot.

A golf course cannot be considered top 100, no matter how good it is from 60 yards in, if there is no challenge to the tee shot.

A tee shot without challenge means the tee shot doesn't require thought, especially strategic thought.  A tee shot that doesn't require strategic thought is an indication that the design of the hole is flawed.

If there is no challenge from the tee, no requirement for strategic thought, the merits of the holes and the course must be questioned, and the attainment of top 100 status is impossible.

But, that's just my opinion.

[Forrest Richardson]

A tee shot is one of the few conditions in life when you are told — not asked — to stand here and do this. You cannot stand over there, nor there, nor face that way — no — you must do as we say and stand exactly between these two points — which will vary — and on this day and this time and this place you must execute this problem.

The other problems beyond the tee shot are sel-induced.

I would submit, Tim, that more weight might be placed on tee shots than your formula allows. However, I share your "14" shot number. The average golfer uses the driving club more often than he/she should. I like very much to see, of these 14 shots, decisions: a few lay-ups, a few "gee, maybe I need to hit the more accurate 3-metal", and then a few bust-it-long type hits.

[John_McMillan]

Try making birdie when your tee shot sails out of bounds.

If your tee shot sails out of bounds, doesn't the hole pose exactly the same stragetic problems for the 3rd shot as they did for the 1st?

[T_MacWood]

Tom Simpson was an advocate of not providing the tiger many visual clues. His believe was that by framing (for lack of a better word) greens and landing areas with bunkers, you actually provided beacons to help the better player. I suspect tee shots like those at RC make some players very uncomfortable...they need some clues. They need the architect to do their thinking for them.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John McMillan,

I'm afraid that you missed the point.

Tim's exercise diminished the value of the tee shot.
My example was to cite its value.

[David Wigler]

Tim Weiman said "Tom Paul and Tommy Naccarato are asses and should be banned from GCA."    

[T_MacWood]

Two of the greatest minds golf has ever known are Bobby Jones and Alister MacKenzie. When they opened Augusta National there were six holes without a single hazard off the tee and very generous landing areas. Would those six holes - 7, 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18 - have been more interesting if they were effected by hazards?

[David Wigler]

The Case for Ignoring Skilled Golfer’s Tee Shots

We have several threads going on the subject of “skilled” golfers playing a course like Rustic Canyon. Essentially, they started based on a comment made by David Wigler. David described Rustic Canyon as being in the Top Ten of all modern courses “sixty yards and in” but went on to say that the course couldn’t be considered Top 100 material based on the fact that Rustic Canyon “failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee”.

The above post stinks doesn't it Tim?  It really sucks to have quotes made up and then attributed to you.  Would you care to find where I said RC "Failed to challenge the skilled golfer off the tee.”?  I cannot find it but it sure suits your point well.

What I did say was "...Rustic Canyon (IMO - George) is a top ten modern from 60 yards in.  It simply does not present enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee."  The difference between "Failed to" and "Enough" is pretty drastic.  One says it doesn’t the other that it needs more.  In addition, an IMO was added.  This was ignored in almost every response, as it was inconvenient.  In addition, I have practically begged to have the word changed from challenge to interest but that does not suit your purposes either.  Perhaps you should retake remedial English if you do not understand the difference between the two words.  I stand by the thought behind my original quote, "Rustic Canyon, IMO, is a top ten modern from 60 yards in.  It simply does not present enough interest off the tee to get into the top 100."  I truly hope that my next visit changes my mind.  It would be much easier to agree with you.  I also truly hope that you stop chickening out of going there due to one bad experience with a Pennsylvania course and play the damn thing.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

All shots ARE in the same category. You have to count everyone you take regardless of the kind of shot it was.

Shivas:

See above. Any analysis of a golf course that excludes putting doesn't make any sense.

Regarding your point about "dumbing down", I think you should consider the context of David Wigler's statements, specifically suggestions we've heard about "excessive width". The width necessary to challenge "skilled" players will always be substantially less than what is practical for all golfers. Just walk around a course set up for the US Open and this point is made clear.

Pat Mucci:

You may not have noticed David Wigler's original statement. He said Rustic Canyon fails to challenge the "skilled" golfer off the tee. He made no representation about tee shots for all golfers. Any value of tee shots for "skilled" golfers must be given the appropriate weighting. Note that I used 10 percent when 3 percent would probably be more fair. Anywhere in that range will still leave us in the same place: tee shots played by "skilled" golfers are a very small part of the game, i.e., at most 2 percent and probably closer to .5 percent.

Forrest Richardson:

Within reason, no matter how much weight you give to tee shots, the appropriate adjustment for the small number of "skilled" golfers still takes us back to less than 2 percent. For example, let's say we went to the extreme of saying tee shots are 50 percent of golf, a case I doubt anyone here would accept. Still, we would only get to a maximum of 5 percent for tees shots by "skilled" golfers as a percent of all shots.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat,
 I totally disagree with that conclusion, and in a little over two weeks, I probably be able to disagree with it even more!:)

Actually, I'm going to point to two different holes, both, extremes of the other off of the tee, one with width, one a certain set boundry that Bernard Darwin called a "Spit and a kick" or a "Kick and a spit." Lets use Pacific Dunes #3 as the hole with the example of the extreme width. It one of my 18 favorite holes at Pacific Dunes, and nothing on Bandon Dunes comes close to it in style or substance (That is MY opinion)

The hole with the extreme framing is, as if there was any question, as aptly named by Darwin, "Death or Glory" in Northwood, England, Darwin said, (but I'm not quoting) that if ever there was a hole where the drive was just a sort of knock it out there anywhere, because all the mattered was not ending up in the very deep and penal traps that proceeded it on the approach (the 2nd shot) which had from my study of the hole seems to have a Road Hole-like effect with any shot that comes near them, swallowing the ball into a pit of firey Hell. (I had to come back and add this) The hole is a mere 310 yards in length, and if one had to ask if it was drivable while standing no the tee, knowing the length, he would be one brave individual!) While most of the skilled players here would undoubtedly be hitting  7-iron or more off of the tee, if they didn't realize the true verocity of the hole, with it's demanding second shot, then they simply really don't understand anything about the game. It is both visual and mental.

(I wish I had pictures to show you, but SOMEONE IN SURREY, ENGLAND HASN'T BEEN DOING HIS JOB IN GETTING ME THE INFORMATION I NEED, AND HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR THE BETTER PART OF FOUR YEARS!:))

Death or Glory is one of the GREAT holes in Golf, as far as Bernard Darwin was concerned, and I have to tell you Pat, the man had a much better eye then all of us combined!

Now the 3rd at Pacific, which in your words, has one of the best greens on the course witht hat back right pin placement, and that huge, much more huge then anything at Rustic Canyon in terms of width, and it is totally awesome! and it too has sort of the same affect ass Death or Glory, You can hit it anywhere out there on the drive, while on the second, you are setting yourself-up for your approach, it is the third that DEMANDS accuracy in placing the shot on the plateau-like green and avoiding the deep pit of bunker that awaits the weak, or in your case) misguided

The point is that a mid to high handicap player, has the chance to play the hole and beat you in regards to strengths and weaknesses as you can beat him to his. The wide fairways aid in this cause, and as Max Behr said about width, Golf is a game that has no set boundry's therefore, why not give him the chance to play the Game and experience the golf hole as nature-layed it out. And just like Tom Doak or Gil Hanse or Bill Coore, or Mike DeVries, and even TOm Fazio, (Shadow Creek for example, only he is still coloring between the lines and not outside them like all of my friends who are making an effort for all who Golf to understand and realize that the Game is larger then the player, no matter how skilled.

That is my opinion.

[Jim Thompson]

Observation:

Courses that are "top 100" material sixty yards and in would only qualify for "top 100" executive courses in my book.  I've never played the course so don't have an opinion on RC itself.

I feel it takes flow and synergy throughout the entirety of the golf corridor to make a great course, not just the green complexes and approaches.  I would bet David, who, in the spirit of full disclosure, has a bunker named after him at my course, didn't feel that the green complexes significantly affected or led to decisions regarding the placement of the tee shot else they would have impacted and tied out the entire hole.  So if a trained eye can’t put it all together, how can it be truly great?

Cheers!

JT

[A_Clay_Man]

here here!

Not to mention that there is really no such thing as an in course out of bounds, is there?

[Tim_Weiman]

David Wigler:

Let's first dispose of the nonsense. Who says I have chickened out of going to Rustic Canyon due to a bad experience in Pennsylvania? In fact, I've been invited to Rustic Canyon on numerous occasions and declined mostly for personal reasons, specifically the desire to avoid spending time away from my daughter.

I'll get there eventually. But, whether I do or I don't is no reason one can't participate in a theoretical discussion of golf architecture.

In case you missed I never challenged your statement that Rustic Canyon was Top Ten within sixty yards. I also never challenged your assertion that Rustic Canyon "does not present enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee".

My apologies for substituting "failed to" for "enough", but you should at least acknowledge my willingness to accept these two statements. That's signficant.

The debate here has NOT been about whether Rustic Canyon is Top Ten within sixty yards. Nor Have I argued whether the course presents enough challenge to the skilled golfer off the tee.

Without seeing the course I couldn't address either assessment, could I?

The debate HAS been about whether a course that meets these two conditions should not be considered Top 100 material.

The key issue here has been about how much weight to give to whether a course sufficiently challenges or interests the SKILLED golfer off the tee.

You DID make reference to the SKILLED golfer in your original remarks. That's what got the whole discussion going!

If you now want to delete reference to the SKILLED golfer, that's fine. But, at least admit it's a non trivial change, carrying far more importance than the difference between "challenge" or "interest".

My energy was around your original statement, that which did include the word SKILLED. If you withdraw that - a sensible position - than the discussion is probably over, at least between you and I.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

You can't just hit it anywhere on # 3 at Pacific Dunes, which by the way, is a course that places great demand on a risk/reward tee shot hole after hole after hole after hole.

On each hole you are challenged, and forced to think strategically with respect to your drive in relation to your angles of attack into the green or the next LZ.

If the pin is right on # 3 green at Pacific Dunes, to attack the pin in three, you need to go up the far right side, to give you the best angle of attack into the neck area of the green or short of the green.

If you plan on attacking the green in two, a demanding tee shot up the left side awaits you.

Have you forgotten the center line bunkers, mounds and other bunkers ?

You need to get back to Pacific Dunes.

The width of the fairway is an illusion to the untrained eye.

[Doug Siebert]

I touched on this in another thread, I'll expand on that here.  Tee shots matter not because they are x% of the game but because without any penalty enforced by the architecture for misses there is very little penalty.  If I heel or hook one, leaving myself 40 yards more than I might have if I hit a pretty nice drive, if there's no penalty for that other than the distance or possibly a bit harder shot from rough, it is not much of an issue to me.  So I have to hit a 6 iron instead of a 9 iron, big deal.

Compare that to what happens if I miss a 6 iron or 9 iron approach.  Even on a completely unpenal green complex, i.e., the giant greens at TOC, I'm not much better off hitting a very long putt than I would be hitting a bunker shot (on a normal course, not out of TOC style bunkers of course!) or flopping one from the rough.  Missing an approach is its own penalty, and of course the closer you get to the hole the bigger the impact a screwed up shot will have.

But driving separates the men from the boys game-wise, someone who hits it solid, long and straight off the tee on a consistent basis is almost guaranteed to play to scratch because the remaining game is so easy.  Its us wild and inconsistent 5s who have all the fun playing from crazy places the plus handicaps hardly ever see (except when they are helping us look for our balls )

[David Wigler]

The debate HAS been about whether a course that meets these two conditions should not be considered Top 100 material.

If that is the debate, than we do not have one.  Of course RC should be "CONSIDERED" for top 100 status.  I feel it just misses and others feel it belongs.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
You are asking: "how much weight to give give to whether a course sufficiently challenges or interests the SKILLED golfer off the tee" and trying to prove mathematically that short shrift should be given to this segment of golfer. Correct?

There are numerous ways to spin the % of number of shots vs. number of players but there are only three segments, leaving out recovery shots for the moment, and they are the  drive, the approach and the putt. Each of these areas now represent 1/3 of the total importance for every level of player, spinning them this way.

Posts of Tommy N and Tom Mac illustrated that great holes can be perceived as easy drives but can still challenge or interest the better player.
Conversely, great holes can have demanding drives where choice from the tee is limited or where choices abound but are hard to reach.

All you can achieve mathematically is to show that a course might have an easier chance of satisfying a larger portion of the market but if a course consistently ignores the drive, or either one of the other segments, it will never rise to the top.

[Forrest Richardson]

Aren't all golfers "skilled" — that is, all golfers have the ability to hit that one skilled shot...whether they hit it less than 1% of the time does not mean a course should lay without such charm. A way around is in order, to be sure.

[Tim_Weiman]

Jim Kennedy:

Actually, it was Geoffrey Childs who asked if a quantitative case could be made for putting relatively little emphasis on whether a golf course presents enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee.

Truthfully, I don't usually decide whether I like or dislike a golf course based on X times Y. To the contrary, I'm quite fond of what an Irish friend once said of Dooks - one of my favorite places in golf: "Dooks is really cool.....it doesn't deserve to be.....it just is".

Nonetheless, I think Geoffrey asked a fair question and he deserved an answer.

Thus, I tried to lay out my assumptions, to make them as transparent as possible. In turns out that only a very small percentage of golf shots played are tee shots by skilled golfers. I think at best you can get to around 2 percent; the real number is probably less than .5 percent.

You'll note I don't leave out putts. I don't leave out recovery shots. I simply added up the strokes, gave equal value to each and calculated the percentage of tee shots played by skilled golfers.

It's a very small number.

That's the quantitative case for placing relatively little emphasis on how well a golf course tests skilled golfers off the tee.

[GeoffreyC]

Tim

I asked that question somewhat in jest as you can't seem to respect David's Wigler's opinion about Rustic Canyon. He clearly articulated the reasons why he thinks RC could be a top 10 within 60 yards and still not satisfy HIS criteria for believing RC belongs on such a list. You used my question to start another thread to rehash the same point again. I've played Rustic Canyon twice and very luckily once with Geoff S.  I don't happen to agree with David's conclusion as I would place RC firmly within Golfweek's Top 100 Modern list. However, I can understand and respect his opinion once I understand it from his posts.

There seems to be too many cases where someone makes a controversial statement or holds an opinion that does not fit the "politically correct" GCA position and that person is ground over the coals.  David's opinion is one example as is Mike Cirba, Matt Ward and Bill Vostinak's lack of raving praise equal to Ran's review of Hidden Creek.  Say something nice about Atlantic GC and you are an outcast with no sense taste for golf course architecture. If we are all here to pat each other on the back for our identical positions then we stubbornly will not learn anything or appreciate that there are different sides to an argument and different tastes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Weiman,

I'm not prepared to agree with your thesis and contention that a 6 " putt equals a drive.

While the strokes count equally, the consequences of a missed 6" putt usually don't have the dramatic ripple effect of a missed drive.

Hence, they must be weighted differently in your formula.

[George Pazin]

Actually, until I see what else is in David Wigler's modern top 100, I won't agree that he has satisfactorily explained himself.

HOWEVER -

I don't think the case can necessarily be made for ignoring skilled golfer's tee shots. While my gut tells me that Mark Fine's simple insight on the other thread strikes me as wise & likely correct (I'll paraphrase it as any course providing interest within 60 yards by definition provides interest off the tee), I can certainly understand why some golfers would have other preferences.

I think a better question would be, should skilled golfer's preferences be given any sort of priority over the less skilled. Anyone who's played with me would probably stunned to learn that I actually think the skilled golfer does deserve preferential treatment (I am the worst golfer on this site). Lousy golfers like me struggle with virtually everything in the game. Sadly, it doesn't really matter that much to me if the tee shot offers much challenge/interest/whatever, 'cause I'm struggling no matter what. Heck, the occasional good tee shot when required thankfully is usually enough to bring me back. Because everything is a challenge, I think the only thing that should really be done to accomodate lessers like myself is to not penalize us unnecessarily with silly carries that any good golfer would laugh at or ridiculously thick rough on narrow fairways, etc. (And  yes, I'm fully aware this means we can't play courses like Pine Valley - tough luck for me, but truth be told, I wouldn't want to go there right now & embarass myself anyway.) So I think some preferential treatment is in order.

As it pertains to RC specifically, my understanding is that the course is designed to use the width to provide plenty of options off the tee while utilizing preferred landing areas to allow the thinking golfer to maximize his experience. Anyone who wants to learn more about the thought process behind the course should get Geoff's new book.

As I read David & Tom H & Matt Ward's criticisms, none of them has suggested anything drastic need be done. Matt has suggested a few relatively minor tweaks & no one has said anything about severely narrowing fairways or anything like that. Matt's suggestions might have merit - I won't be in SoCal anytime soon so I'll have a long wait to see for myself. I'd be surprised if any architect on this board felt his courses were above criticism once completed - given the oportunity, I'd guess many would love to be able to tweak their courses ala DR at #2.

Lastly, things are getting a bit testy online, but I don't really understand why. If you do not want your views challenged or questioned, why are you participating in a discussion board? I don't think Tim's questions are going overboard - he simply doesn't feel they have been answered. I may or may not agree, but I can certainly understand why he feels the question of top 10 inside, not top 100 overall has not been adequately explained.

P.S. David, while I appreciate the mention, I'll remind that it was I who said that we don't need the qualifiers - it goes without saying that everyone should know that your views are indeed your opinion. I don't think we need to go overboard with qualifiers. Similarly, the many defenders of RC should understand that your view is indeed your opinion & you are entitled to it.

[GeoffreyC]

George- Not adequately answered?  What is it about the argument that a long hitter can bang away with impunity still in the fairway with a sand wedge or pitching wedge that is so hard to understand? What's so hard to understand that someone has the opinion that with those clubs in their hand from the fairway that scoring is easier then a situation where they can get into enough trouble to almost certainly cost shots?  What's so hard to understand that someone thinks a shot from 20 yards with no bunkers in between him and the hole that in fact can be putted is easier percentage wise then an 80 yard wedge?  What's so hard to understand that this individual thinks that because of this he thinks there are at least 100 modern courses that are better?  Those ideas were made very clear.  You can disagree with the argument but if that criteria places a course lower on a ranking relative to another why can't it be respected?  I'm sure we'll hear some academic argument about how we're only trying to pose questions and discuss a topic of interest about golf course architecture but I think that's just a bunch of bunk.