Penalizing the marginal shot

[JESII]

I was thinking of you when I referred to a goal of bogeying every hole, and naturally a golf expert like Tom Paul when referring to shooting even par.  

Happy Thanksgiving!

[Pat_Mucci]

You talk about someone hitting a thin shot and it leaves a difficult recovery, and a running shot pulled off line into a hazard, as being examples of penal architecture.

I said that some courses penalize the marginal shot, not that the course itself was penal.  There is a distinction.

Other courses have penal "features" that await the mis-hit or careless shot.  Again, there is a distinction.[/color]

Aren't those just bad shots?

Not necessarily.

It depends upon the margin of error within the shot at hand.
[/color]

Now if the opening for the running shot was only 2 feet wide, and the ONLY way to play the hole, I would say that IS penal.

Not if the approach shot was from 80-100-120 yards, or some distance easily carried.[/color]

Great thread, but disregarding others viewpoints just because they haven't played Seminole is against the rules.

Not really.

When individuals who haven't played Seminole, who don't understand the architecture, the use of the features and the interfacing of the play of the hole with the added influence of the wind, and they try to debate the issues absent a meaningful data base, one must discount, and on occassion, disregard their points of view.[/color]

Happy Thanksgiving!

You too.[/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Now if the opening for the running shot was only 2 feet wide, and the ONLY way to play the hole, I would say that IS penal.

Not if the approach shot was from 80-100-120 yards, or some distance easily carried.[/color]

Ed,

There's your problem. You've been trying to run a running shot instead of carrying a running shot. Won't you ever learn? And don't you dare throw out the blanket statement of "not neccesarily, it depends"!

Joe

[Pat_Mucci]

Now if the opening for the running shot was only 2 feet wide, and the ONLY way to play the hole, I would say that IS penal.

Not if the approach shot was from 80-100-120 yards, or some distance easily carried.[/color]

Ed,

There's your problem. You've been trying to run a running shot instead of carrying a running shot. Won't you ever learn? And don't you dare throw out the blanket statement of "not neccesarily, it depends"!

Joe

Joe,

Cite an example of a situation where the only approach shot is running the ball through a narrow opening only two feet wide ?[/color]

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   I'm still not clear on what you consider penal golf. Is it a deep greenside bunker? You spoke of a thin shot and a running shot that weren't well-executed, and both went into deep greenside bunkers. So I conclude from what you have said that deep greenside bunkers are penal. Is placement a factor around the green, or is it just that they have to be deep? Congrats again on the win.

Grandpa Joe,
   Happy Thanksgiving!

[Joe Hancock]

Now if the opening for the running shot was only 2 feet wide, and the ONLY way to play the hole, I would say that IS penal.

Not if the approach shot was from 80-100-120 yards, or some distance easily carried.[/color]

Ed,

There's your problem. You've been trying to run a running shot instead of carrying a running shot. Won't you ever learn? And don't you dare throw out the blanket statement of "not neccesarily, it depends"!

Joe

Joe,

Cite an example of a situation where the only approach shot is running the ball through a narrow opening onlytwo feet wide ?[/color]

Pat,

I believe Ed posed this situation as hypothetical in an effort to clarify a definition of "penal" as it pertains to this discussion. His statement contained parameters, to which you added.

Joe

[Pat_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

The discussion is about architecture that penalizes marginal shots, not penal architecture.

Ed Getka,

I'd define penal as any feature that causes undue difficulty.

[Sean_A]

Pat

Undue difficulty for who?

Ciao

Sean

[ed_getka]

Patrick,
   I'm getting more confused by the minute. What is the difference between architecture that penalizes marginal shots and penal architecture? Is it penal architecture when the onerous hazard can be avoided? And with the marginal shot, isn't it the marginal shot that is penalizing the golfer, not the architecture? The architecture penalizing the marginal shot is a result of the golfer, unless ANY marginal shot would end up in a penal hazard.
   This discussion is difficult because it seems to me that you can't isolate the interface between the golfer's actions and the architecture. The result of a marginal shot is a combination of the line the golfer chose and the architecture.

[Pat_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

The golfer.

Ed Getka,

It's a matter of degrees.

Being penalized for a marginal shot doesn't mean that the recovery is difficult.

Penal architecture usually means that the recovery is difficult.

[ed_getka]

I think of penal architecture a little differently I suppose. I think of penal architecture resulting in virtually no chance for recovery, and no options to play around or away from the hazards. If there is a "safe" way to play the hole it becomes strategic in my mind. A forced carry of 240 yards off the tee for the likes of me is penal architecture, a forced carry of 240 yards for the best line, while having a bailout area that leaves a longer approach is strategic. If the drive on #2 at NGLA only had the option of going up over the hill at the green that would be penal, but because you can bail out right there off the tee it is strategic (although having your ball down in that hollow off to the right isn't exactly a reward).
   

[Pat_Mucci]

Ed Getka,

How would you define the Road Hole Bunker on # 17 at TOC and at # 7 at NGLA ?

Would you define # 16 at CPC as penal ?

From a practical point of view, an option is only an option if it's utilized.

If 1 out of 100 golfers take a different route, does that qualify as an option, from a practical point of view ?

But, again, this thread isn't about penal architecture, it's about architecture that penalizes the marginal shot.

[Joe Hancock]

As I see it, if we play the law of averages, the average golfer hits a lot of shots that accomplished golfers would deem marginal. To continue that thought, most shots that miss its target by any margin will prove sufficiently penalizing for the average golfer.

Defining a marginal shot would have to take into account the ability of the individual golfer.

Joe

[Pat_Mucci]

Joe,

It's not quite as simple as that.

One has to remember that golfers SHOULD play from tees commensurate with their abilities.

In addition, the higher the handicap, the greater the margins for error, which should be factored into each shot prior to execution.

Lastly, higher handicaps, while they aspire to score well, don't, relative to par.  So, a good drive, leaving the high handicapper with an 8 iron into a green, that is hit "marginally" for a good player but, "standard" for the high handicapper will result in the likelihood of a bogey, whereas the low handicap still possesses the skills to recover his par.

It's not that the high handicapper can't hit a great recovery or sink a good putt, but, if he plays true to his handicap, the odds are against it.

See, see the ball Joe, be, be the ball Joe.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I agree i.e. simplicity. For instance, playing the correct tees according to handicap MIGHT address level of ability solely from a distance perspective, while ignoring hazards placement and difficulty, etc. From my vast experience of watching "average golfers" try to execute, the tee shot is one of the most simple elements to address.

I was watching my assistant play the Mines GC, and I made an observation I hadn't stumbled across before. My assistant, who generally hits a decent tee ball at our home course with no trouble between tee and fairway, made a panicked attempt of hitting the ball each time there was trouble in front of him at the Mines. Of course, each time he ended up in the trouble. It was phenominal as to the consistency of the results. It was then that I more realized the interaction between "ability" and "what goes on upstairs".

"It's hard to be the ball when you keep talking..."

Thanks,

Joe

[Pat_Mucci]

Joe,

What goes on upstairs is a deciding factor in playing the golf course at hand.

I liken it to making a bet with respect to walking across a 50 foot 4" X 4" beam.

While lying on the ground it would seem a relatively simple task.

At 10' in the air, it's a little harder.

At 100' in the air, it's much harder.

At 1,000' in the air, only special, mentally tough, or deranged individuals would attempt the walk, with some making it.

Yet, it's the exact same beam, same length, same dimensions.

Only the consequences for failure have changed.

That's why what's done well on the range doesn't always translate and travel well on the golf course.

[Garland Bayley]

...
That would depend on whether or not Vermillion CC possessed substantive, intrinsic architectural values.

Perhaps it was Vermillion's lack of enduring architectural values that caused its demise.
...
Too bad you've never played there, it's the type of golf course you could play every day and never tire of.[/b][/color]

More likely Vermillion's demise was only owning land for a 9 hole course when an upgrade to 18 holes for the community was desired.

You can't say that for the Donald Ross 18 holers that have been lost.

While I was there, I played Vermillion every day and didn't get tired of it. But then, I'm just a golfing fool.

Congratulations on your win at Seminole!

[Kyle Harris]

Aren't there parts of a golf course where the definition of marginal shot changes based on position?

If I rail a drive up the correct side of the hole and I am hitting a full blown wedge into the green with plenty of room left, right, in front and in back... a marginal shot for me would be to leave it short or long: poor distance control.

If I am down the incorrect side of the same hole, and have to come over a bunker to get into the green. My bail out area may be in front of the green. Leaving a shot there wouldn't be marginal, just strategic. However, it would be in the same spot as a marginal shot hit from the other side of the fairway.

In the first case, the marginal shot was based on execution, in the second case, it was based on strategy. I was punished on the tee shot in the second instance and had to play to a spot that would be a marginal shot if I weren't punished on the tee shot.

[Doug Siebert]

JESUS Pat!

Exactly what courses are you playing that you compare how penal they are to walking across a 4x4 at 1000 ft?  I think the wind at 1000 ft is a hugely underrated factor in your example....guarantee me no wind and I'd be willing to walk across a 6" wide beam at 1000 ft for enough money!

Even the ridiculous golf courses that exist only in the deranged mind of the architect of the courses in the Golden Tee arcade game aren't quite that penal!  As an aside, if you haven't ever seen Golden Tee, check it out sometime and nothing you'll every play again will seem difficult or penal by comparison!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug Siebert,

You missed the point of the analogy.

Go back and reread the posts,

Then hit the modify or delete button.

And, it was a 4 X 4, not a 6' beam.

[JESII]

Patrick,

What is your view of a marginal shot? Course specific examples work fine unless you have a better method. Thanks.


I think that answer will tie into Tom Doak's comments about proportionality.

I also think Seminole does as good a job as anywhere at penalizing the scratch's marginal shot appropriately while not over punishing the bogey golfer.