The beauty of architecture deceiving the golfer ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The relationship between the immediate approach area, green and area behind the green can be combined to lull the golfer into a false sense of security.  In many cases this configuration can turn what appears to be a certain par or birdie into a bogie and worse.

Two great examples of this are the 10th and 13th holes at GCGC.

The approaches are wide open in front.
The green slopes away from the approaching golfer with a slight right to left cant.
Deep bunkers are found behind the green.
Fast and firm greens and approaches add to the deception.

The ideal location to putt from is below the hole, between the rear bunker and the hole, but most, hit short of the hole or the green, leaving them with difficult downhill and downhill sidehill putts, resulting in three putts, or dicey chips toward the deep rear bunkers.

Those that fly the ball to the hole usually find a deep, difficult bunker, and, the tendency is to hit their recovery above the hole when the hole location is in the rear of the green.

The golfer, viewing his approach sees a relatively benign approach, and in most cases, doesn't understand the conspiracy of features that lies ahead.

In most cases, only the flag/stick is visible, as the green falls away from the approaching golfer.

Has this combination of seemingly innocent features become a design feature of the past ?

Where is it employed on modern day golf courses ?

Why isn't it used more often, given that all land doesn't rise up to greet the golfer ?

[ForkaB]

Pat

I assume you have played GCGC hundreds of times.  Do those holes you mention still  decieve YOU?  If so, how and why?

A corollary question--if architecture only deceives the first time or chronically naive golfer, is it good or just a tour de force?  Alternatively, if there is a feature which confuses even the long-time player, is it good, or just inherently deceitful?

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick, Rich
good and interesting questions. My two cents:

Patrick: I think we see less of those kind of deceptions for two reasons:

first, because everyone is concerned about the slow pace of play and don't want a green complex that's too deceptive or difficult (though I still think that the pace of play is slow mostly because most of us golfers aren't very good)

second, because at high-end or resort courses, men who are normally very succesful in their business lives (and thus can afford the high-end course) don't like being made to look foolish on the golf course

Rich:

Yes, deception only really 'works' the first time through; and  that's why a well designed hole will have both the element of deception and the element of DECISION:

i.e. once I know there's a 'trick' to my approach shot, a good hole will still leave me with a decision to make on how I'll handle the trick, depending on how brave, foolish, or skillful I'm feeling that day

Peter

[TEPaul]

"The golfer, viewing his approach sees a relatively benign approach, and in most cases, doesn't understand the conspiracy of features that lies ahead."

Patrick:

"The conspiracy of features"? A CONSPIRACY OF FEATURES???

Did you think that up?

That's one of the coolest descriptions or architectural phrases I've ever heard in a couple of years!

I'm gonna make that phrase famous if it's the last thing I do.

Henceforth, "A conspiracy of features" needs to be a conceptual requirement for really good and interesting golf architecture.

"How did you like the course Tom?"

"Not much."

"Why not?"

"Because the course really didn't have any conspiracy of features."

or,

"What do you think of the 10th at Riviera, Tom?"

"I think it could be the best architectural feature conspiracy in the world."

Do you think we can have "Conspiracy" Architecture in the future? Maybe even "Cabal" Architecture?

"Conspiracy of features"?! Coolest architectural phrase I've heard in a couple of years. I just knew if I stuck with you and tutored you long enough that something good would come of it even if it was only through osmosis, and now it has.

[Kyle Harris]

Osmosis: The diffusion of water.

Nice usage, Tom.  

[ed_getka]

I think the coolest thing about conspiracy of features is that the more you know about all the factors in play the harder the hole becomes. You feel as if your margin of error is so much smaller, than someone who is blissfully unaware of all the potential pitfalls.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

The best conspiracy of features I can think of on a golf course are features that dictate the hole to play longer than the card yardage.

Forcing play to the edges of fairways and the outside of doglegs and the like through the use of terrain, hazards in the fairway or around the green and preferred angles of approach.

A superb example of this is the 2nd hole at Rolling Green, The golfer is tempted to cut the corner and carry the bunkers off the tee, but the angle into the green from that side of the fairway is awful, with half the green falling away from the golfer and a huge maw of a bunker yawning out from the hillside. Here, the conspiricy uses the tempting nature of bunkers at the corner to lure the golfer into not seeing the hole for what it is, as the angle obtained by avoiding the bunkers and making the hole a bit longer is the superior play.

[TEPaul]

"Osmosis: The diffusion of water.
Nice usage, Tom.  

Kyle:

Words, or the use of them don't get good until you get on down there to the fourth or fifth meaning or more.

In this case not just the diffusion of water, but---'A subtle or gradual absorption or mingling suggesting such diffusion'...(of water, ideas, whatever). For even a guy like Patrick if he's around me long enough something good will rub off on him.

And, furthermore, don't knock water, it has feeling too, you know?

[Kirk Gill]

Deception may be the wrong word, especially in a case like the one mentioned where two holes on the same course have similar features. If deception was truly the goal, then the cat would be out of the bag at the 10th, and the 13th would be no surprise. What would be tantamount to deception would be if the 13th hole appeared to have similar features to the 10th, but was hiding a pot bunker in front, or the green was angled in such a way as to hide a swale that would send aerial approaches to the front bounding into those back bunkers. But I digress.

Since most golfers aren't able to execute the same shot in the same way every time, the DECISION Mr. Pallotta mentions in his post might change once a certain approach had a bad result. The holes as described by Mr. Mucci invite different approaches, both aerial and on the ground. Part of the beauty of this kind of architecture is the variety it provides, the various routes to success or failure. The CONSPIRACY OF FEATURES !!!!  So I don't know if I'd use the term deception. Is there a dignified way of saying "screwing with the golfer's mind?"

[Mike_Cirba]

Pat,

The best conspiracy of features I can think of on a golf course are features that dictate the hole to play longer than the card yardage.

Forcing play to the edges of fairways and the outside of doglegs and the like through the use of terrain, hazards in the fairway or around the green and preferred angles of approach.

A superb example of this is the 2nd hole at Rolling Green, The golfer is tempted to cut the corner and carry the bunkers off the tee, but the angle into the green from that side of the fairway is awful, with half the green falling away from the golfer and a huge maw of a bunker yawning out from the hillside. Here, the conspiricy uses the tempting nature of bunkers at the corner to lure the golfer into not seeing the hole for what it is, as the angle obtained by avoiding the bunkers and making the hole a bit longer is the superior play.

Kyle,

I think the only problem with that type of "anti-strategy" is that you only fool the golfer once.  

After trying the left hand route once and getting burned, one would never intentionally flirt with the bunkers off the tee again but instead play out to the more open, if longer, right hand side.

I like it as a break from formulaics and it wears well when used sparingly.  However, at RG, it's used again on the 5th which might be a bit too much within the first nine holes.

[TEPaul]

"A corollary question--if architecture only deceives the first time or chronically naive golfer, is it good or just a tour de force?  Alternatively, if there is a feature which confuses even the long-time player, is it good, or just inherently deceitful?"

Rich:

You may be confusing "a hole (or shot) is only BLIND once" with 'a hole only deceived the first time'. I've seen a number of holes deceive even very good players for long periods of time or perhaps ad infinitum.

Blindness and deception may seem like the very same thing but in golf they really aren't. Is deception in golf or architecture deceit? Sure it is but so what? Is there some new requirement in golf and architecture now that the architect or the course should never try to deceive the golfer? Not in my book, although a number of modern architects seem to disagree with that. In my opinion, golf architecture should be a chess game to the golfer and in chess deception is pretty much the name of the game.

If golf and architecture had no deception then where would  thinking come into it? If everything was completely obvious then golf gets reduced to nothing more than a matter of physical skill and execution. Some apparenly think that's what golf should be, or that that's all it should be and architecture should only countenance that. I think golf should be more than just skill and execution, that's for sure.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Not sure I agree re: 5th at Rolling Green. To me, the green is just as difficult to approach from the left side of the fairway than on the right. Sure, the left side gives you a bit of a peek at a run on shot, but the premise of the hole is to let the left side feed the ball into the green - which can be accomplished on the right side of the hole just as well.

I think you'd have to be along the property line to get a decent enough angle into the green to make that big of a difference.

I also believe that the temptation of making the hole shorter may be enough to carry the concept for subsequent playings. Sure, the golfer knows the better side to come in on is down the right and outside the dogleg. But if he can throw a dart up on the green with a shorter club, maybe he won't have to settle for a run-up shot... AND THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF IT. It's like parleying a proposition bet on a craps table... you know it probably won't happen, but that temptation to turn $1 into $900 with the roll of the dice is just too much sometime, and it's all in pure fun anyway...   but most every time, it bites you in the butt...

As a caddy, I've had many oppurtunity to discuss strategy with members who had played the course a billion times, and it seems the prevailing temptation is to cut corners and look big, instead of keeping angles.

So, you mean to tell me there are different flavors of Anti-Strategy? How does RG AS differ from Ridge at Back Brook AS?  

[ForkaB]

Rich:

You may be confusing "a hole (or shot) is only BLIND once" with 'a hole only deceived the first time'.

Tom

I say what I mean and not what you think I might mean.  I know of the subtleties between blindness and deceit vis a vis golf holes much more than you do, Buckaroo.......

[TEPaul]

"I think the only problem with that type of "anti-strategy" is that you only fool the golfer once."

MikeC:

What the hell is 'anti-strategy'?    

[mike_malone]

 Wow ! You can learn alot from reading this site. I never thought #2 and #5 at Rolling Green had the same "anti-strategy". I see it on #2 but I need help on #5.

   BTW I always try to go left on #2; The G spot on the left side of the fairway is too much to resist.

[Mike_Cirba]

Wow ! You can learn alot from reading this site. I never thought #2 and #5 at Rolling Green had the same "anti-strategy". I see it on #2 but I need help on #5.

   BTW I always try to go left on #2; The G spot on the left side of the fairway is too much to resist.

Mayday,

It's not as obvious, but the result is the same.  In both cases, the "opening" to the green, as well as the most advantageous angling and green slope to receive an approach is directly "away" from the line one would come in from if you challenge the fairway bunker(s) with the tee shot.  

In the case of #5, despite my best efforts to do otherwise, I ALWAYS end up over on the right near the bunker from the tee (given my lefthandedness, the uphill tee shot, my tendency to draw (re: hook), and the way the tee lines up.  From there, the approach shot is not fun.  Even if I avoid the bunker, there is sometime some tree overhang, a horrible angle, and I usually bail the approach to the left.

Kyle,

I agree that his works on a hole where a long-hitter might try to drive so far that they have a short iron in.  However, I doubt that 95% of players hit it long enough on either 2 or 5 to have this advantage.

Tom Paul,

Hey, give me a little credit for the nomenclature!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Speaking of "Churn", I posted last at 11:30 est time today and now find this thread (at 1:30 est) on page 2!!!  

Either I'm the biggest thread-killer in history or I brought up some irrefutable points that Tom Paul, Mayday Malone, and Kyle Harris are unable to counter!  

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   Fridays are Rotary lunch for me so I have been away.

     I think a very important difference between #2 and #5 that may be only completely understood by those who play there often is ----how the contour of the fairway affects the ball .
        On #2 the contour costs you yardage to take the better side. On #5 the contour aids you when you take the  better side. This leads to many more choosing to tempt the wrong side of #2 than of #5.

    Much of this goes back to the definition of "strategy". For me, the key is the decision making before the shot. I can't think of too many people who "choose" to go right on #5 but many do  choose to go left on #2.


    Now I would agree that a bad execution of strategy can end up the same on both holes , but that is after the shot not before.

[Kyle Harris]

Wow ! You can learn alot from reading this site. I never thought #2 and #5 at Rolling Green had the same "anti-strategy". I see it on #2 but I need help on #5.

   BTW I always try to go left on #2; The G spot on the left side of the fairway is too much to resist.

Mayday,

It's not as obvious, but the result is the same.  In both cases, the "opening" to the green, as well as the most advantageous angling and green slope to receive an approach is directly "away" from the line one would come in from if you challenge the fairway bunker(s) with the tee shot.  

In the case of #5, despite my best efforts to do otherwise, I ALWAYS end up over on the right near the bunker from the tee (given my lefthandedness, the uphill tee shot, my tendency to draw (re: hook), and the way the tee lines up.  From there, the approach shot is not fun.  Even if I avoid the bunker, there is sometime some tree overhang, a horrible angle, and I usually bail the approach to the left.

Kyle,

I agree that his works on a hole where a long-hitter might try to drive so far that they have a short iron in.  However, I doubt that 95% of players hit it long enough on either 2 or 5 to have this advantage.

Tom Paul,

Hey, give me a little credit for the nomenclature!  

Mike,

My counter isn't really a counter. I agree that most players probably aren't long enough, But that's the rub! I've suffered the purgatory that was being in the bunkers on #2 at Rolling Green because I was trying to show off for Wayne's son and carry them. We were playing back at Testosterone National and I was tempted to drive over them. I knew the play was to the outside, but being full of gravitas it didn't matter. I wanted to brag that I had 9 iron into the green.

Yes, 90% of the golfers can't carry them, but how many of those 90% think they can, and try...

That's the temptation. That's the fun. Especially when they're my opponent.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

   Fridays are Rotary lunch for me so I have been away.

     I think a very important difference between #2 and #5 that may be only completely understood by those who play there often is ----how the contour of the fairway affects the ball .
        On #2 the contour costs you yardage to take the better side. On #5 the contour aids you when you take the  better side. This leads to many more choosing to tempt the wrong side of #2 than of #5.

    Much of this goes back to the definition of "strategy". For me, the key is the decision making before the shot. I can't think of too many people who "choose" to go right on #5 but many do on #2.


    Now I would agree that a bad execution of strategy can end up the same on both holes , but that is after the shot not before.

Mayday,

You may be surprised to learn that I largely agree.  From the tee on #5, you really don't see the bunker very well on the right, nor is it 100% obvious the first time that the hole is a very slight dogleg right, so playing intentionally up the right side would not necessarly come to mind.

However, it does shorten the hole to favor the right and is the "protected" side, after all, where Mr. Flynn chose to bunker the inside of the dogleg, yet a play favoring that side is rewarded with...a next to impossible second shot.

Fool me once, Mr. Flynn...

If I were good enough to hit where I aim, I'd never flirt with that fairway bunker nae more, nae more.

[Mike_Cirba]

Kyle,

Are you sure Shivas hasn't been tutoring you?  

[Dave Bourgeois]

I agree with Kirk here. I wouldn't think that this particular feature is meant to fool anyone. Rather, it may require a different type of shot than other approaches each time played and not just once.  Of course I have never played GCGC, and don't know what the holes look like, so there could be a larger conspiracy here that I am not aware of!  

In addition, I imagine GCGC has a strong caddy program, so I would hope a good looper would let the first timer know about the trouble behind the green.

[mike_malone]

 Mike,
     I tried to write a response but it was getting too wordy.


    Suffice it to say , the planting of trees on #2 and #5 has significantly changed the lines of play off the tee and the challenges at the green from what they were in 1926. If we went back to those options you would probably see these holes as quite different.

[Joe Hancock]

Wow ! You can learn alot from reading this site. I never thought #2 and #5 at Rolling Green had the same "anti-strategy". I see it on #2 but I need help on #5.

   BTW I always try to go left on #2; The G spot on the left side of the fairway is too much to resist.

Mayday,

You wouldn't be so quick to aim left there if it was short grass to the tree line left!

Joe

[mike_malone]

 You are right, Joe. BTW I shared several of your ideas with one of my playing partners that afternoon after our little stroll around the course. He is a thoughtful guy who knows something about the course's history .

    HE THOUGHT EVERYONE OF THEM WAS GOOFY