Difficulty Factors

[Mike Dickson]

Ok, this is related to a question I've asked before, but I've found a more tangible way of asking it  

I'm in the process of brainstorming factors that are created/controlled by the architect which by themselves that alter the difficulty of an approach shot.  However, the factor must be subtle enough so that it will only affect a shot played from certain portions of the fairway.

Here are some ideas I've come up with so far:
Fairway sideslope
Fairway upslope/downslope
Opening angle of green
Shrubbery that obstructs vision
Trees that obstruct aerial shots
Small hills that improve vision
Small valleys that diminish vision
Deflection mounds near green
Bunkers designed for visual intimidation

"What's all this non-sense leading up to?" you ask.

Here's a visual example with an explanation below:


Note that I've created two obvious paths of attack to the hole.   Each path combines elements from the above list. The red path plays to a valley, and the approach shot is obscured by the ridge.  The attraction to this path is that this angle opens up the green quite nicely and the fairway is fairly level.  The blue path plays up over the ridge to an uphill-sidehill lie.  The view of the green is much better, but the attack angle is compromised.  Ultimately, is there a clear cut preferred path?  I don't believe so.

In essence, this is a hole that lacks heroic elements but presents irreconcilable options that have to be weighed by the golfer. The best strategy is for the golfer to choose the path he is most comfortable with.

I'd like some feedback on the design and concept.  Is there an obviously preferrable path in your opinion?  Can you augment my list of difficulty factors?

[Mark_F]

Mike,

I like this type of hole where there is no one clear way to play it, and it would surely forever have one thinking.  

As long your second shot along the red line wasn't too obscured, though.

What sort of green contour would work best?  I feel undulating, but not sloped any particular direction, especially from right-to-left.

[Craig Sweet]

Where to begin...

Why two "obvious" paths off the tee? Why have the approach from  either path include elements from your list? Why not one path having no elements?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'm not sure what you mean to say by 'irreconcilable options'. If by that you mean two options (or more) that are in some form of balance or equilibrium, then I sure do buy that.

Any architect can come up with these kinds of things in theory, on paper or on the ground but to prove the effectiveness of what they're trying to accomplish can only be tested over time in play. An option that may look interesting that isn't used or isn't used much is not a good option and so the hole's concept begins to fail.

Holes that are truly great in a balanced "options" sense are the likes of the old #11 ANGC and the 10th Riviera. For years even the great players have never agreed on the best way to play those holes. In other words the various options are used all the time.  

After that if a hole can produce a wide "scoring spectrum" over time something of real interest day and and day out is going on with the options of that hole.

On the other hand, if players of various levels tend to play a hole the same way day in and day out something is likely not good about the hole in a balanced options sense.

However, personally and perhaps unlike some on here, I don't think all good golf holes need to be optional or with options in a form of balance or equilibrium. Most all good golf courses have a few holes that might be termed "one dimensional" in a strategic sense. In the old days those kinds of holes were referred to a "shot testers". In other words, it was obvious what any golfer needed to do on them---eg no real choice, just execute or pay the price.

[Craig Sweet]

Tpaul..."one dimensional"....this is it...this is the hole, right here before your eyes...no gimmicks, to tricks...this is how you HAVE to play it to score....there are NO other options....lets see you execute!!!

If your match comes down to this hole......Perfect!!!

[TEPaul]

Craig:

Another good facet of some of the ultra famous strategically one dimensional "shot testing" type holes that come late in their routing (as they probably should for best effect) is that the best of them have a tendency to consciously get in any player's head long before they get there.

[Brent Hutto]

The ninth hole at Columbia (SC) Country Club, my home course, is a mild version of what you propose. There's not a ridge down the center of the fairway per se as you've drawn it but the fairway slopes from high on the right down toward the left and there's a big of a valley along the very left side of the fairway. The strategy is reinforced by a large, moderately deep bunker on the front right of the green that stretches back 20-25 yards. If you get in that bunker and there's a back hole location you can end up with nearly a 40-yard bunker shot worst case. We also have a fairway bunker on the far right edge of the fairway at about normal driving distance.

On occasion when I happen to drive the ball way right over near the bunker I love the view of the green from over there although the hole is so long and uphill that I have to lay up so the greenside bunker is not a factor (at least not on the second shot). Most of the 6-20 handicap players I play with hit it down the left side because on the low side you get more driving distance because the tee shot doesn't land on an upslope. Basically, someone who hits a low running ball that carries 220-230 can end up with a semi-blind 130-odd yard approach shot if they go left or a 160+ yard approach shot if they keep it on the right side (and the second shot is 30-40 feet uphill). It's pretty much a no-brainer for players of that length that they want to hit a 7-iron or something without having to go over the bunker rather than a long iron or hybrid over the right-front bunker.

So how do you propose to keep the design you suggested from offering a much shorter shot with the left option? Even without a greenside bunker it looks to me like that with a firm fairway the drive down the left is going to end up 30+ yards clsoer to the green than one landing into the upslope on the right. Unless there's a severe risk involved with the left option I can't see many players choosing a three-club longer approach just to have a better angle and view of the green.

[Mike Dickson]

So how do you propose to keep the design you suggested from offering a much shorter shot with the left option? Even without a greenside bunker it looks to me like that with a firm fairway the drive down the left is going to end up 30+ yards closer to the green than one landing into the upslope on the right.

The tee can be moved more to the right, which will increase the dogleg of the red path while lessening the bend of the right path.  In this way, it is possible to achieve  fairly similar length approach shots.

Unless there's a severe risk involved with the left option I can't see many players choosing a three-club longer approach just to have a better angle and view of the green.

I've addressed the length of the approach shots above, but what if the ridge makes the approach from the blue landing area semi-blind so that only the top of the flag is visible?  Optionally, a moderate falloff could be placed left-front of the green.

[Garland Bayley]

I take it you have played Langdon Farms then.

[Brent Hutto]

Mike,

Well, if you put a falloff on the back left of the green and a bunker below the level of the green on the front left you're getting real close to the ninth hole at my club (which BTW was the eighteenth in its original ordering when Ellis Maples built it in 1960). So from the right side (blue in your sketch) we not only have to go across a front-right bunker but if a right-hander hooks it a bit it will go off the back left and down the hill.

I think as drawn the red path is the clear choice. Move the tees well right and dogleg (plus lengthen) the red side and the blue looks good although depending on the slope it may be that you try to hit it on the blue side but many shots funnel down into the red area anyway. So in that case it wouldn't really be necessary to arrange a semi-blind approach from the right.

Actually, with the tees moved rightward I really like this as a high-degree-of-difficulty driving hole. Make the blue side have good visibility and less uphill to the green such that hitting it there is Position A. If someone hits it too far left or with a poor shot shape and ends up on the red side then they've got the angle of the green in their favor to make up somewhat for being more uphill and less visible (and maybe a touch longer). And then with the curve to the left of that ridge you have depicted the big bombers can try to get it around the curve and leave a short, good visibility shot with a perfect angle from Position A+.

[Tags:]

Tags: