[Phil_the_Author]

Wayne,

No matter how many times I try to post a photo I mess it up. I just emailed you the photo of Crump at Pine Valley taken by Tilly. In it he is hitting off bare soil that appears to still need shaping.

Do you know if this is an example of him "shot testing" at Pine Valley? If so, do you think you can post it?

[wsmorrison]

Here's the photo you sent me:



This is an example of shot testing prior to the hole design in the design process.  

Shot testing as Tom and I use the term and as Jim Sullivan understands it is different.  The type of shot testing we feel that was designed into golf courses is where specific shots are dictated to achieve the best score possible.  

For an extreme example consider the case where an architect has a landing zone on a fairway that slopes left to right so that for right-handed players it is a draw lie.  Suppose the green complex (slopes, bunkers and other hazards) requires a fade to hold the green or position the ball on the correct portion of the green to have a chance at birdie or a good chance at par.  This is a case where the architect tests by dictating a certain shot, in this case a fade off of a draw lie, the ability to hit a specific shot on demand which all golfers are faced or they must make up with a great recovery or putt.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

"Shot testing" the way I use it is two distinct things.

First, back in the old days with some architects the way they generated design ideas was to hit lots of shots on the property. Apparently Crump and his foreman Jim Govan who was a really good player from St Andrews hit shots constantly and for years at PV to determine shot values, green sites, bunker placements etc.

Secondly, "shot testing" in a design or strategic sense on a course is a concept that requires the player do something specific or a couple of things in tandem on a hole to succeed. JES used the best example of "shot-testing" of the 7th hole at PVGC. Back in that day a very good player basically had to hit his best drive and best brassie to clear "Hell's Half Acre". If he couldn't do that or didn't do that he couldn't expect to hit that par 5 in THREE shots.

Tillinghast described that concept in detail in his article "The Three Shotter". That's a perfect example of a "shot-testing" design.

The photo, by the way, is Crump in the right side massive sand area right of #6 fairway before it was finalized.

[Mark_Fine]

JES II,
You are showing your lack of understanding of the #16 hole at Cypress Point.  Best to play it than make your comments.  One more point to help educate you.  If a golfer hits two wedge shots of 115 yards (assuming little roll) doesn't that equal 230 yards of carry.  The average golfer does not carry his driver 230 yards in the air (sorry JES II, that is a fact).  However, these same players can often hit a wedge 115 yards.  Play the hole, then comment.

I'm afraid you are the one that doesn't understand this term "shot testing" or maybe its that you have your own definition.  

Tom Paul says "shot testing" in a design or strategic sense on a course is a concept that requires the player do something specific".  You say it is about putting each player into the same position on a particular hole.  The only holes I know where the player is put into the same position to play a hole is on par three holes.  Why would any par three not require some kind of shot testing?  Please educate me?  The architect picks the location from where the golfer is to play, orients the target and the hazards so everyone comes at it from the same angle of approach, and essentially challenges the player to do something specific to succeed on the hole.  What am I missing?  Please explain?  Is #16 at Cypress Point not a shot testing hole?  Is #17 at the TPC of Sawgrass not a shot testing hole?  Is the local muni's 130 yard hole with a bunkers surrounding the front not a shot testing hole?  

Moreover, does a "dogleg left" par four hole fit the term for "shot testing"?  If not why not?  

To go back to the #2 hole, on your approach shot on #2, the architect doesn't tell you that you have to hit a low running draw into the green for your second.  You might use that shot to run it on or you might hit a high soft cut shot depending on conditions and your preferred ball flight.  You also told me that the distance in might vary from 200 to 220 (off a downhill lie) and that this was a big difference for you.  Seems to me not every golfer is in the same position on the approach so does that negate the shot testing of the hole?  I don't think so.  

By the way, I didn't even know what Tom Doak said about this in the Confidential Guide.  When I referred to Tom Doak's opinion about the cart before the horse hole it was from one of his earlier posts on this thread.  Tom said:

"Tiger Woods decided that a lot of the holes at Hoylake were better approached in "cart before the horse" style (by himself, anyway), and that was great to watch.

To me that is more interesting than the diagram shown.  Let the player bomb away with driver into a landing area fraught with difficulty (but not the certainty of water), or let him lay back and attack the green with a longer iron.  

I don't think the hole should be as Rich suggests, where the long hitter can carry everything by force.  But the other extreme is not right either -- if you really FORCE everyone to lay up in roughly the same spot, you are just giving all the advantage to the better man on the approach.

By the way, are any of the Hoylake holes shot testing holes?  If Tiger turned them into cart before the horse holes as Tom suggests, wouldn't they then qualify in some way?  If not please tell me why?  

 
 

[T_MacWood]

Who are some other famous shot testers?

I'll start: Old Tom Morris, HS Colt, Herbert Leeds, WC Fownes, Donald Ross, Johnny Low, Walter Travis, Marion Hollins, Bobby Jones and Lewis Lapham.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark, you asked, "By the way, are any of the Hoylake holes shot testing holes?  If Tiger turned them into cart before the horse holes as Tom suggests, wouldn't they then qualify in some way?  If not please tell me why?"

No they wouldn't and the reason is a simple one. By defin ition, and this was defined by Tilly in his thought experiment, the player is forced to hit his tee shot to a specific location that would preclude choice. No driver. Not hitting a driver, as in the case of Tiger at Hoylake, was an option he chose while others chose others.

It is the choice that precludes most holes from being a "cart before the horse" type of hole.

That is also the reason why par-threes aren't either, even though CP as you cited is a great hole that can be played short left and then another pitch in to the green.

Tilly's idea was for a two-shotter (par-4) only, and with the 2nd shot having to be a long one. His idea was a hole without options that could only be parred with very well-played and exact shots properly struck.

The reason he believed that this type of hole would rarely be built and that he probably never would build one was because there could be no options available to the player for either tee or approach shots.

By the way, what has also been missed is his description of the fairway landing area from the tee would place it on "a plateau." He seems to be implying an uphill and maybe even a blind tee shot as well.

[Mark_Fine]

Philip,
Thanks for the summary.  When I was talking about "shot testing" I wasn't only referring to cart before the horse holes.  I was referring to Tom's definition and I guess Wayne's and JES II's.  They used #7 par five hole at Pine Valley as an example of a great shot testing hole.  That is clearly not a cart before the horse hole but it is a shot testing hole.  Given that example, why would par three holes not be shot testing?  That was the point I was driving at.  

Maybe where things got confusing was with #16 at Cypress and refering to it as potentially a cart before the horse style hole.  It could be played that way but you are correct it would not qualify by Tillies definition as cart before the horse.  The other example I gave of the par two hole was just a radical extension of the cart before the horse concept (applied to a par three).  

[JESII]

Does anyone else think this is like explaining calculus to Larry the Cable Guy?

Let's talk about CPC 16 first Mark since you brought it into this discuaaion and I am making no specific hole comments, but rather working off the clear physical elements of the hole.

Are you suggesting that the actual yardage of the hole is 230 and not 200? Assuming that is why you used that number, are you then suggesting that someone can hit two consecutive 115 yard shots to cover that 230 yards? Have you ever heard of Pythagoras?

I am keeping this hole in the conversation because I think you reach to try to make a point. I think you exaggerate. I don't think there is a guy on the planet that can hit two pitching wedges to that hole that could not hit a wood directly to it. You tried to explain this hole as one that takes options out of some players hands, and I don't think you can support that position.

Now back to the "cart before the horse" idea. Of course par threes are a form of shot testing. What takes the idea outside of the box is the notion of putting people in a like situation on two-shot holes. As you may have observed, on most every two-shot hole on the planet, as soon as the players (a group that is) tee off they are off on their own playing the hole however they can. They lose each other. The "cart before the horse hole", that does not offer an alternative option off the tee, gathers everyone into the same area and asks them to hit a shot. Can you get your hands around that? Can you explain how it does that?

[TEPaul]

I think PhilY did an excellent job of describing what "shot testing" was in the minds of some of those early designers such as Crump.

It's a little off the subject, but this thing we sometimes hear called "using every club in your bag" was something Crump was dedicatedly trying to do at PV with his hole by hole design at PV. He wasn't only doing that there generally but he had a prescription laid out for precisely where he wanted various club usage to occur in the best of circumstances.

Another thing we probably tend to forget today compared to the way they played golf back then---and designed---is even the very good player back then hit driver a lot more than most good players do today. Back then even par 3 holes were designed where the very good players expected to hit driver, and a very well executed one at that. That is definitely "shot testing" design and the idea of a good player needing to hit a driver to a long par 3 today virtually doesn't exist, but it did back then in that "shot testing" era.

Furthermore, back then the fixation on GIR didn't exist to the extent it does today.

Today many golfers consider chipping and pitching in the hope of one putting for par something of a "recovery" mode. Back then chipping or pitching in the hope of one putting was considered far more of a bona fide golf strategy albeit a conservative one (perhaps to avoid the high risks of some "shot testing" strategies). It was a lot of what the old "tortoise and hare" analogy was built on.

But in the mind of a designer like George Crump the most complete examples of real "shot testing" would be the 7th hole of PV where even a good player had to string together his two longest clubs (ie a good drive and a good brassie) just to clear HHA, or on #15 the concept (not actually completed in Crump's lifetime) was that the good player had to string together his three longest shots just to reach the green in three. Or even the 4th hole where the good player was not expected to hit less than a brassie approach to that green from the top of the hill.

These concepts on those holes (and others) at PV are not speculation. What those concepts were intended to be and to call for were written.

[JESII]

Tom,

re: #4 at Pine Valley, do you think it was in fact accomplished? The full extent of shot testing that is. I might have my numbers a bit off, but I think it's only about 230 or 240 from the back tee on #4 to get over the hill. That was not exactly unattainable, even 80 years ago, was it?

#7 seems to be the ultimate example of this concept to me.

Are there any modern forms of "shot-testing"?

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

I've been using the measuring tool on Google Earth (tools drop-down menu at top left) and it is only about 225 to clear the top of the hill.  Of course it probably plays like 240 because of the uphill nature of the tee shot (I gotta check my geometry).

By the way, that tool is awesome!  I was using it for Huntingdon Valley and Merion this weekend.  Your yardages on C-2 were right on.

[JESII]

I can tell you this, approaching #4 from the top of the hill would be an absolutely awesome shot.

They might have to put in bullet-proof windows on the pro shop and clubhouse if they ever got back to demanding that shot.

Another thing, this thread has really energized me to look into the best way to get the most out of that hole, #2 on the C-nine. A couple of small things might be able to be done to make the hole more palateable for a wider spectrum of players.

[ForkaB]

The first hole at Royal Cinque Ports, Deal is a very good example.  The best way to par that hole is (in my experience) to hit a 150-160 yard tee shot and then cut a long iron over the burn and onto the green.

[JESII]

Rich,

Is a longer tee shot a viable option? Or are the risks much greater than the reward?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()