[JNC Lyon]

...who is also a good player.  How often is the shorter hitter considered in architecture???  For a 9 handicapper who drives the ball about 200 yards (such as myself), I think that this type of player is rarely considered in golf architecture.
Two pet peeves would be:
1)  A course which never has any hazards to consider off of the tee at the 170-220 mark, so players like myself never have anything to consider on the tee shot, and (effectively) I am never rewarded for straight hitting over an erratic player.

2)  Holes which require a 200 yard carry to reach the fairway.  Longer hitters have no trouble at all with the tee shot, but someone like me has to lay up with a seven iron, then hit a five-wood and another seven iron to the green.  I have lost one more shot on a longer hitter, who already has a distinct advantage.

Are there any holes that provide relevant, strategic options for the short hitter?  Oftentimes I am underwhelmed by a course considered to be great by many, mainly because I am presented with no interesting feature off the tee.  An example would be Oak Hill's East course, where, when I question the supposed greatness of some of the holes, longer hitters/better players tell me I don't hit the ball far enough to experience the greatness through my game.  I see that as a weakness of a course which is said to be a great driving course by many people.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JNC,
Why not move up a tee or two, then you'll run into most of what you've been missing.

[George Pazin]

Wrong answer Jim!

With all due respect, if JNC_Lyon's a single digit handicap, he shouldn't have to move up a tee to find the same challenges - well, not the same challenges, but the same level of interest - as the longer hitter.

This is one of the many things I dislike about the multiple tee theory of architecture. One of the other big pet peeves I have is for someone like me, who's a high handicapper due to his short game (and penchant for penalty strokes ), but drives the ball as far or farther than many single digit handicappers (my average solidly struck drive is probably 250-260). If I play the correct tees for a 25 handicapper, I'm teeing off with 5 irons sometimes. Heck, at Tobacco Road, if I followed their recommendations, I'd tee off with a 7 or 8 iron on a bunch of holes (trust me, I know this from real life experience).

JNC_Lyon, my recommendation would be to see out older courses by the masters like Ross, where par is defended at the green.

As for specific holes, you can never go wrong by citing the 10th at Riviera, no matter the question. There's probably plenty of examples overseas, where the courses are so old that the bunkering may not have been updated to reflect the modern game.

[JNC Lyon]

Maybe this is why I love Ross courses, not just because of the defense of par at the greens, but the fact that the bunkering is often a shorter distance from the tee.  Ironically, older courses with fewer tees actually possess more interest/options for the shorter hitter.

Thompson's St. George's in Toronto has bunkering of all shapes and sizes, as well all different lengths off the tee.  For me, terrain or bunkering challenged the tee shot significantly on ten of the long holes, which is at least half a dozen more times than at other venues.

One problem of the multiple tee theory is that I often have no choice, as I play a large amount of tournament golf.  Our local golf association has a knack for playing junior tournaments from the championship tees.  In a qualifier for the Junior Matchplay Championship, the course we played was so long, the personal par for me was 82!!!  I played well to shoot 84, which included two holes where I made double bogeys without hitting a single bad shot, including one hole where, due to a 200-yard carry off the tee, forced me to hit 7 iron-5 wood-5 wood--to a par four!!!  I missed by two shots, without three-putting once or hitting more than half a dozen loose shots.  Point is, the architect should have to consider options/strategy for all players from one or two tees.  Multiple tees are just a poor excuse for bad architecure.

[Tom_Doak]

JNC:  I think about your type of player a lot.  Go see one of our courses and tell us how we're doing.  (Sorry but there are none in Canada.)

[Garland Bayley]

I almost wonder if you could use a random number generator on a computer to place bunkers and come up with an interesting strategic design for all abilities from short and straight to long and wild, from short and wild to long and straight. Use the generator to overgenerate bunkers and then thoughtfully eliminate the most poorly placed ones (I guess those would be the ones 240-320 yards from the tee on the edges of the fairways)

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:  You could do that, but I'm not sure it would be that good!

Good bunkers fit into certain spots in the terrain.  A lot of courses suck because the designer wants to put a bunker a certain distance from the tee for "strategic" purposes, but there is no way to build a good bunker at that distance.

Of course, if you plan for that in the routing, you will lay out the hole so that the place you want to put a bunker is in one of the spots that it's easy to build a good bunker!

[John_Cullum]

...1)  A course which never has any hazards to consider off of the tee at the 170-220 mark, so players like myself never have anything to consider on the tee shot, and (effectively) I am never rewarded for straight hitting over an erratic player.

2)  Holes which require a 200 yard carry to reach the fairway.  Longer hitters have no trouble at all with the tee shot, but someone like me has to lay up with a seven iron, then hit a five-wood and another seven iron to the green.  I have lost one more shot on a longer hitter, who already has a distinct advantage.

It appears to me that you have developed a strategy that gets you around the golf course relatively well. You carry a 9 handicap so you apparently are in fact rewarded over longer, erratic hitters. And you find a way to compete when confronted with a forced carry you know you can't manage. It seems most courses are quite playable for you.

[Darren_Kilfara]

JNC - come take a two-week vacation in England, playing the great heathland courses southwest of London, and you'll absolutely feel like you've died and gone to heaven...

Cheers,
Darren

[Jim_Kennedy]

George,
Tom Doak said he thinks about shorter players in his work and it doesn't sound like he's talking multiple tees. How much of that do you see around? I'm just being a pragmatist here. If the design lacks interest for your driving distance then move up or back, if that be the case. Handicap is irrelevant, you said your good drive is 250/260 so what the heck are you doing playing from the 25's tee?  

I just don't think you can say that the architecture is good or bad because every driving distance isn't accommodated. JNC mentions that at his length Oak Hill East doesn't test him off the tee but he feels tested at St. George's.
I don't think one examination is better than the other, they just start with different questions.

[BCrosby]

One rationale for Ross's "topshot" bunkers was that they provided exactly the kind of interest for shorter hitters that JNC Lyon finds missing on so many courses.

Most topshot bunkers were removed over the years. Short and erratic golfers argued that being short and erratic was penalty enough. Apparently their pleadings carried the day at most clubs.

But JNC is right. And Ross was right. If you are short and non-erratic, removing those old bunkers makes for a less interesting golf course. Plus, the old bunkers looked cool.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()