[Marc Haring]

I’ve just had a brief scan through the ‘great penal courses’ thread and it is getting into some fairly heated debate as to what defines penal, strategic and heroic design.

Are there any lateral thinkers out there who would like to have a go at recategorising GCA into less ambiguous forms?

Has this been attempted before?

[Sean_A]

Aw Mark, just when I was gettin a handle on the ambiguous forms, you wanna go and simplify terms.  Are you a mathmatician?

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

If anyone wants to describe a course like Bethpage Black in the 2002 US Open or Carnoustie in the 1999 Open, I wouldn't describe or definie them as "penal architecture", I'd just describe and define them as extremely hard.

As usual most on here tend to completely over-think definitions of types and styles of golf architecture to such a degree they eventually get into cyclical discussions and a constant need to define the terms they use to a point that approaches meaninglessness.

A good working definition for penal architecture compared to strategic architecture,in my opinion, is Cornish and Whitten's sublimely accurate definition and description;

"PENAL design generally involves compulsory carries over hazards with no alternate routes."

"STRATEGIC design provides althernate routes so that the player is not required to carry the hazard. It also provides a pemium for those who dare the hazard and succeed."

[TEPaul]

Examples:

Is the tee shot on Merion's #18 or PVGC's #18 penal or strategic design? Both are completely  "penal" in design as they both require a compulsory carry over a hazard with no alternative route. I don't see that there's a need to parse the description or definition beyond that reality.  

[Marc Haring]

Well I was thinking. How about a Fred Funk course as one category and a Tiger course as the other. Or perhaps defining architecture in terms of the quantity of cerebral activity required versus required skill levels.

Geez, this is getting more fuzzy edged than that strategic, penal stuff.

Ok, scrub the thread!

[A_Clay_Man]

In Geoff's book he illustrates the different styles with pictures. I inferred "Penal architecture" as one that penalizes a shot that doesn't go straight at the hole. i.e. Bunkers, or non-recoverable nastiness, on the sides of fairways. In strategic golf, the nastiness is on the line that is straight to the green, causing the golfer to decide if straighter is better.

Ron Prichard once explained to me that Ross never put bunkers on the outside of the dogleg, because hittng it there was it's own penalty. Lenthening the hole, while still allowing for recovery. In other words; Errant shots are their own penalty and there is no need to add insult to injury.

[Kyle Harris]

Penal architecture is binary architecture. One option passes, the other option fails.

Strategic architecture allows the golfer to define pass and fail.

Tom Paul,

PVGC and Merion's 18th have forced carries that are one element of the shot, but not the only. Which side of the fairway is more beneficial? While there is little choice but to carry the hazard, where you carry the hazard is quite important too.

Penal architecture simply demands that you carry a hazard. Strategic architecture demands that you carry the hazard in the right spot.

[Sean_A]

Kyle

If one HAS to carry the hazard, it must be penal.  Look, I have spent a three page thread learning this.  There can be no nuance.  Next thing you know we will have a thread on strategically penal architecture.

Ciao

Sean

[Jeff_Brauer]

How about this:

If a shot has NO options, its just plain unfair.......
If a shot has one option only, its penal...
If a shot has two options, its strategic (or heroic)....
If a shot has three options, its strategic, heroic and flexible....
If a shot has four options, it may be too easy, dull, confusing.....or all of the above.  
If a shot has five options, its a dartboard (or dart bored)

[Jay Cox]

Jeff, what about shots with an infinite number of options?  The tee shot on a cape or cape-like hole is the most obvious example.  Is that a dart bored?

Personally, I think once you get to at least two options, there is very little correlation between the number of options on a shot and the quality of the hole.  Among the very greatest, I see #16 Cypress Point as having exactly two options (lay up or goes for it, with no really meaningful choice to make within those categories), the approach on #13 ANGC as having three options (lay up to leave a full shot, lay up to leave a pitch, go for it), and the tee shot at the Road Hole as having an infinite number of options (just how far over the hotel do you want to aim?).

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff,

I'm rather surprised that you seem to be saying that a hole is either penal or strategic, or strategic or heroic, to say nothing of all three!

I defy anyone to explain to me how #17 TOC isn't penal, strategic and heroic all at once.  Its surely penal: the bunker, the road and wall, and the OB which is so penal everyone plays so far away from it that going OB on #17 is almost unheard of!  I won't even defend strategic, if that hole doesn't qualify, nothing does.  Certainly its heroic, as one may be as heroic (some may say foolhardy, but its all a matter of perpection and personal feelings exactly how penal the bunker and road are) as one wishes in attempting to play for the green or the pin itself.

Maybe there aren't a lot of REALLY GOOD examples of this, but the holes that qualify on all fronts are the ones everyone remembers, and the ones we discuss endlessly here on GCA.  Holes that are merely strategic are interesting, but are rather easy to create and a dime a dozen as a result.  Holes that are merely penal often aren't even all that interesting.

[Marc Haring]

How about this:

If a shot has NO options, its just plain unfair.......
If a shot has one option only, its penal...
If a shot has two options, its strategic (or heroic)....
If a shot has three options, its strategic, heroic and flexible....
If a shot has four options, it may be too easy, dull, confusing.....or all of the above.  
If a shot has five options, its a dartboard (or dart bored)

I think Jeff's suggestion deserves some discussion. I like it, as it turns it into a quantitative approach as opposed to a qualitative.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Doug,

In the process of simplifying any definitions, there will be some overlap. I agree TOC 17 can and is all three.  But, if the purpose is to "classify" holes, and distill it down to "sound bite" definitions, then you probably would put any hole into one category or the other.

In fact, in my definitions, I recognized that a two option hole could be either strategic, or heroic, or maybe a blend of both.  Its semantics. I know TePaul calls 10 at Riv a great strategic hole, while I would classify it as heroic.  In reality, it (like most heroic holes) is also strategic - with more dramatic options and penalties.

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

My impression is that "heroic" (apparently a term invented by RTJ) is in no way different from "strategic", merely a sort of refined or vaguely specific form of "strategic". I believe RTJ mentioned the basic use of the diagonal as essential to a "heroic" form of strategic architecture.

To me, trying to actually get into describing and defining any golf hole as to whether it's penal, strategic or heroic doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Going down that road just gets further into "formulaics" and a "standardizing" mentality in golf architecture which I feel is never healthy for the art form in the long run.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

We sort of agree on the heroic part - although I tend to think of it as an optional force carry required, and not necessarily the diagonal of the Cape Hole, for instance.  An alternate fw like Riv 10 qualifies in my book.

As to formula, labeling something isn't really a drain on creativity - as witnessed by any unique architecture, but just a necessity for someone writing about it.

[mike_malone]

 For me "fun" is engaging my mind in the game as well as my body. So, there are "fun" courses and "notfun" courses.

   The courses that are the most fun engage me fully from tee to green. This engagement is more important for the mind than the body. Why? Because ,like most golfers, I can't usually execute what I plan but the planning is the most fun. I don't find it fun to HAVE to hit the ball in only one direction to survive without a penalty shot.

   As I played yesterday I realized that my home course ALWAYS gives you at least one shot that is extremely challenging to think about and usually to execute physically as well. The fun grows because I have no idea when it will happen. However, it happens because of the use of the slopes that exist throughout . That is why I feel strongly that the best parkland courses must have slope as a major feature.

 

[BCrosby]

Jeff makes a good point.

A hole can have so many options it becomes dull, insipid.

The flip side of the same coin is that saying a hole is strategic is not the same thing as saying it has lots of options. It may have only one good option. Great strategic holes have a range, but a limited range, of playing options.

On a related topic, I think RTJ's concept of the "heroic" is fascinating and under-analyzed. I've always suspected that the idea grew out RTJ's frustration with fitting holes like the 13th at ANGC into the usual strategic boxes. It doesn't fit. It is stategic, but part of its strategy is electing to play a long forced carry. That is, part of the hole's strategy is to entice you into trying a long, penal approach.

Bob

[Marc Haring]

So as a matter of interest, what factor is this hole on the Jeff Brauer index.

It’s a 400 yard straight hole with the green in the distance. There’s a band of cross bunkers guarding the green with no opening so you have to take the aerial route and there is no advantage to be gained on either side of the fairway. Oh and it’s a tight tee shot. The far right fairway bunker is reachable with driver and the other right one is carryable with a three wood.

[Jason Topp]

Good example.  The answer is it depends.

If there truly is no advantage on one side or the other, I consider it is penal - 1 option hole.  One could argue that there is a strategic element, namely whether it is worth the risk to hit the tee shot farther down the fairway.  Using that definition, every hole has some strategic element so I eliminate that as a possible criteria.

It would be a classic strategic hole if the green opened up from the right side, giving an advantage to taking on the bunkers.  It would be a better strategic hole if fairway bunkers were in such a position that there would be options to go short, left, over or around.

It would be a heroic hole if the fairway bunker crossed the entire fairway at an angle to the line of play and the green opened from the side of the longer carry.  The bunker would need to be placed at the proper distance from the tee to make the decision interesting.

[Kyle Harris]

Jason,

You touched an interesting point with distance. I consider distance to be the first and primary hazard in golf. The fact that the game is to get the ball from point A to point B and that point A is far from point B is the chief hazard in golf.

Therefore, distance would be considered the first penal hazard - regardless of what lies between - by some people's definition.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()