My Day at Stone Eagle

[Tim Pitner]

Matt,

I'm not picking on you, but I've never really understood the phrase "shot values."  What does it mean?  When a course rates highly because of its shot values, does it mean that you have to hit a lot of different types of shots (fade, draw, low, high, etc.)?  Or does it mean that one likes the look of the shots (from the tee to the fairway or the fairway to the green)?  Or something else?  It seems like a phrase that could mean anything.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim - I too find that the term "shot values" can mean whatever one wants it to mean.  So while I think I know Matt's definition, I won't guess and will leave it to him to explain.

In any case, here's how it's used for purpose of course rating in the Golf Digest world:

How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?

Not sure if that's good bad or indifferent for you, but there's one definition, at least.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Tim:

I define shot values as how the architect calls upon the player to play the greatest range of clubs and dexterity of shots during a round.

The great courses I have played usually require the player to likely play each club in the bag. In addition, the player must demonstrate the ability to work-the-ball from left-to-right, right-to-left and have the wherewithal to vary the trajectory of shots played when called upon -- especially when facing wind patterns that demand player attention.

In sum -- superior courses provide the consumate examination of all the elements in making shots during one's round and for me the elements of shot values is where the rubber of the design meets the road of the shots to be played. Courses can only be deemed superior when they provide the kind of unique challenge that mandates the player to raise the bar in terms of their ability level and likely causes a major rush of excitement to experience what is needed time after time after time.

Hope this helps answer you question.

[Tim Pitner]

Hmmm, Tom and Matt, the definitions you offered aren't bad, but they're very different.  Matt's definition emphasizes the need for a player to shape shots and control trajectory--these skills don't mean too much to the higher handicap player who is hoping to hit the ball straight.  The Golf Digest definition is mcuh broader.  It does a pretty good job of defining what makes a good golf course, but I'm not sure it helps my understanding of the "shot value" concept (perhaps it's too broad).  

Not really knowing how others defined "shot values," my own take went something like this--if a hole presented a shot that looked cool (maybe a carry over a hazard, preferably non-water) or made me play a shot that was fun (perhaps a run-up shot or fade to hold a green), I'd think that hole had a high "shot value," although I didn't actually use that term.  

[Tom Huckaby]

Tim:

Well, I doubt there is any one standard definition for this term.  Thus one does have to be careful bandying it about.    

If I were to use it - and I don't, except as required in Golf Digest course ratings - mine would take in all of GD's, Matt's and yours.  All of that makes great sense to me.  But then of course there's no freakin' way I could adequately define what I mean.

TH

[DMoriarty]

I read your last post and have to say we look at golf design from vastly different points of view -- with all due respect. Don't know what I can say or add that will help you understand better where I am coming from because I have attempted to do that on numerous occasions previously and what has resulted is nothing more than a back-and-forth Perry Mason exchange that really doesn't move things along.

I just reread my last post and have absolutely no idea what would lead you to conclude that we have "vastly different points of view."  Whether or not we do, I just don't see it in my last post.   As for what you could do to help me understand better from where you are coming,  why not simply do what you said you were going to do:  Answer the questions you said you planned on answering.  Please.

My take on golf course design is not regimented to a narrow and very limited sense of what quality golf design is. While I can certainly respect differences in taste / styles -- I have to say that there are some major differences between you and I that are quite vast and likely will never be reconciled.

I take it you are saying that I have a narrow and limited sense of what quality design is?   I'd love to hear just what you mean by this, if this is what you are saying.  

Again you talk about the major differences between us.  If it is true that we have major differences, I'd love to try to understand just what they are.  How about you tell me, since you seem to have such a strong sense that you and I are so far apart.  

I have posted numerous times before the three (3) key elements I apply to any course I visit. They are in order:

Land / Site
Routing
Overall Range of Shot Values

Factors such as overall conditioning, esthetics and others elements are secondary.

I have previously defined the top three items listed above. No doubt people may take a different approach to how they view courses and that's fine by me.  I believe that any course I have played that is rated high in those three areas will be one that I wish to play again and again when time and opportunity permit.

I recall you saying this in the past, but IMO it begins the conversation, rather than ends it.  You state that you do not have a narrow and limited sense of what quality design is.   True to this statement your categories are extremely broad on their face, so much so as to easily encompass my entire list of design elements above.  Yet when you start to explain what you really mean and to apply these categories, I am not so sure they are as broad as you think they are.  

For example, you explain what you mean by "shot value" below:

"I define shot values as how the architect calls upon the player to play the greatest range of clubs and dexterity of shots during a round."[/b]

Your further explanation leaves little doubt of what you mean by this.  For you great courses require
 . . . the golfer to hit every club in the bag
. . . the player to demonstrate the ability to work the ball left and right
 . . . the player vary the trajectory of shots when called upon . . . .
. . . a consumate examination of shot making.
. . .    In order to be superior a course must require the player to raise the bar in terms of their ability level.

Hopefully you will agree with me when I say that you think that a great course must require a great player to play great in every aspect of his game throughout the entire round.

By your requirements for great architecture, a "superior course"  would require that each round be a tougher test than most if not all US Opens.  

I was planning on trying to explain to you where your definition falls short, but after having gone through your definition again, it seems hardly worth the effort.  So let me first ask you:  

Reading back through your definition of "shot values," do you really seriously contend that your approach "is not regimented to a narrow and very limited sense of what quality golf design is?"

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I have had numerous discussions with you on what I constitute to be superior golf and I have taken the time and energy to read what you believe to be so.

We do have vastly different points of view and they come from different areas of empahsis. So be it.

Your mind is made up regarding Black Rock and I see things differently there. For me to take all the time and effort to explain -- as I have previously on Black Rock and other courses -- only wastes my time.

I have said there are clear issues with Black Rock and I have previously spelled out the shortcomings -- as well as the more noted elements -- in terms of certain holes there -- the back-to-back par-3's at the 13th and 14th holes is one good example -- I found the latter unappealing (waterfall and all) but the latter is a very good hole. I also mentioned some of the more unique aspects of the course that often are given short shriift.

David, you say you are interested in understanding what our differences are. Frankly, I have spelled out what I use as my benchmarks on reviewing courses -- it's what you asked me and I provided it in black and white.

My categories listed are broad for a reason. And they have worked very well for the fullest range of courses -- from those that have low CR and slopes to those at the far end and in anything in between. My tastes in golf design range from oldtime layouts like Morris County GC in Convent Station, NJ to the demands presented by such layouts as Bethpage Black and those in between. The same thing applies to the broadest range of architects and the work they produce.

I never said a player must play great in every aspect of the game. I simply said the categories I listed are the areas I start with in reviewing the qualities of the design and the challenges / uniqueness the layout provides.

Shot values for me is where the rubber (the actual design) meets the road (the practical application of playing varied golf shots when at a particular course). Great designs don't have to be extremely onerous -- it's so easy to stereotype me as simply being a proponent of such courses -- but all great courses do elevate the interest of all players because of the manner by which they require appropriate profiency when playing there. It is through shot values that the qualities of the design can be rigorously tested in a straightforward manner that goes beyond just how the course looks to how the course actually plays.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

On the first page you said I raised some interesting questions and that you planned on answering them when you had time.  Are you now saying that you will not answer?   Hmmm . . . I always thought of you as a man of your word . . .

My categories listed are broad for a reason.

But Matt, there is nothing broad about your definition of "shot values"  which I think even you will agree is first among equals of your three main criterion.  I didnt misrepresent your definition, in fact most of the words our yours, not mine!

I never said a player must play great in every aspect of the game.

Huh?  While you predictably neglected any mention of short game or putting prowess, you definitely say that a great course requires a golfer to be able to control his ball with every club and raise his game.  Sounds like you want greatness to me.  

Shot values for me is where the rubber (the actual design) meets the road (the practical application of playing varied golf shots when at a particular course). Great designs don't have to be extremely onerous -- it's so easy to stereotype me as simply being a proponent of such courses -- but all great courses do elevate the interest of all players because of the manner by which they require appropriate profiency when playing there. It is through shot values that the qualities of the design can be rigorously tested in a straightforward manner that goes beyond just how the course looks to how the course actually plays.

Matt, it is only easy to stereotype you because you stereotype yourself.  Most of my post is your words, not mine.   You honestly set out what you believe and is about as narrow as one could possibly imagine.   Here is your post again:  

Tim:

I define shot values as how the architect calls upon the player to play the greatest range of clubs and dexterity of shots during a round.

The great courses I have played usually require the player to likely play each club in the bag. In addition, the player must demonstrate the ability to work-the-ball from left-to-right, right-to-left and have the wherewithal to vary the trajectory of shots played when called upon -- especially when facing wind patterns that demand player attention.

In sum -- superior courses provide the consumate examination of all the elements in making shots during one's round and for me the elements of shot values is where the rubber of the design meets the road of the shots to be played. Courses can only be deemed superior when they provide the kind of unique challenge that mandates the player to raise the bar in terms of their ability level and likely causes a major rush of excitement to experience what is needed time after time after time.

Hope this helps answer you question.

Read what you wrote.  It takes absolutely no stereotyping to figure out what you are looking for here!   Are you now saying that you are backing away from this?   Now I am really confused


I've an idea.  Let's simplify this.  Why dont you answer my questions so I can get a better idea of where you are coming from?  Or if you now refuse to do what you already agreed to do, at least tell me where the design elements I listed fit into your overall scheme?

Come on matt, in the time we have wasted on this you could have answered my questions four times over.  

[Matt_Ward]

David:

Thanks for laying out the bait -- I'm not biting.

Clearly, your desire to get from me comments on Black Rock was not meant with a possible open mind on changing your viewpoints about the golf course. So why waste my time in providing for you comments which in all probability you will disagree with in their entirety. You don't like the course and I do -- it's time to move on.

You can easily find my past comments on Black Rock -- I did a complete course review after I played it. I also provided an array of comments on any number of the holes there and I did mention that other Engh layouts like Lakota Canyon Ranch and Pradera were better examples of quality mountain type design.

I've also listed the key elements I use when assessing any course. It's there in black and white. I also said that there are any number or courses I like that have so very little to do in terms of slope and course rating. Of course -- that doesn't dovetail with the stereotype others have of me -- including yourself -- but I could care less.

Let me enlighten you on a few fronts.

The land / site is the first among equals for me because the site is generally the element that causes the most attention on first glance. Then comes the overall routing and finally the element of shot values. Got it.

Profiency is part and parcel of the game of golf. I never expect mid to high handicaps to play like low handicaps but clealy a commensurate challenge is appropriate and likely sought after by most golfers. A talented architect makes it a point to provide a layout that can provide challenges (shot values) within the reach of those playing the course from the appropriate markers.

I stand by what I said but frankly this conversation bores me because it's nothing more than the same David M back and forth word play. Enjoy yourself David --

[DMoriarty]

So, you tell me a few times that you will answer my questions, yet now you refuse.   Classy move.   One might surmise that you are afraid of what the answers might reveal.  Why else agree then renege?  If you are so comfortable with the efficacy of your approach you shouldn't mind answering a few questions.  

But forget about Black Rock.  How do the design elements I listed fit into your evaluation of any golf course?  Surely that is a fair question.  

The land / site is the first among equals for me because the site is generally the element that causes the most attention on first glance. Then comes the overall routing and finally the element of shot values. Got it.

No, I dont "got it."  In fact I dont even think it makes any sense at all.   You said above that aesthetics is a secondary consideration, so you cant be looking at the land/site for its aesthetics.  The land/site is the element that causes the most attention at first glance??? What in the heck does that mean and why is it so important???  [Since Matt probably doesnt have an answer, if anyone understands this at all, please chime in.]  I dont get it one bit.  

How is the land/site important to you if not to help the architect create the severe test you call "shot values?"

And every time you talk about routing it always relates to stuff like whether the par threes face different directions and are different length, or whether there are enough long hard holes playing uphill or into the wind, or whether the golfer doesnt play similar shots in a similar direction consecutively.  I agree that these routing factors  can be important, but they are all part and parcel with your "shot values" definition.  You think they are important because they help you get to a higher level of "shot values."

After all, you certainly have made clear that you dont care much about other aspects of routing.  For example, you dont care if the holes are anywhere near each other or a long cart ride away.  You even dismissed John Kirk's comments about Stone Eagle because they related to the walkability of the current routing, as if this was a factor that was entirely peripheral to the quality (and routing) of the golf course.  

So isnt it fair to say that, for you, the quality of the "routing" and the quality of the land/site are just additional routes leading to that "shot values" test you so love?

Matt, far from being third among equals, it seems to me that your "shot values" category may have swept the medal stand.  

Profiency is part and parcel of the game of golf. I never expect mid to high handicaps to play like low handicaps but clealy a commensurate challenge is appropriate and likely sought after by most golfers. A talented architect makes it a point to provide a layout that can provide challenges (shot values) within the reach of those playing the course from the appropriate markers.

Assuming it is possible to provide "commensurate challenge" through multiple tee boxes (and I dont believe for a minute it is) this really doesnt soften or broaden your requirement much at all.  Your idea of good golf course architecture still boils down to the same thing-- a thorough test of all aspects of a player's shot making ability. The weaker students must take the same test, only a little bit shorter.  

If anyone else is still out there, I am being unfair to Matt?  If so how?   I just dont see it.  

Matt, the conversation might not bore you so much if it were actually a conversation.   A conversation involves a back and forth, an exchange of ideas, questions and answers, a willingness not only to state one's beliefs, but also discuss them.

In all the times I have tried to get you to discuss your approach you have refused to have a converation.  Instead you just simply state the same old thing over and over again.  

And you cant call it my "word play" if they are your words.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I have been quite candid and to the point on the methodology I follow on golf courses. If it's not clear to you then the issue rests more with your internal comprehension -- not mine.

David, you are simply interested in mindless debate that goes no where. I can see where this is headed -- please continue without me. I'm sure you can.

We share similar feelings on Stone Eagle -- there's little else we do.

[DMoriarty]

You pose an interesting series of questions / re: Stone Eagle v Black Rock. . . .
. . . I will answer shortly because given your tenacity to make your points I want to have all my details lined up in a nice row of defensible points.

Adios for now ...

Thanks for your candid and thoughtful answers, Matt.   I am sure glad you are never one to run away from a challenge.  

I'll just mark a big "X" down on your scorecard.  

[Matt_Ward]

David:

I never run away from challenges that are worthwhile. You can fill in my meaning at your convenience.

I'm more than happy -- even eager -- to discuss the merits of any course I play and the approach I generally follow.

However --

It's abundantly clear to me that such an exercise with you is nothing more than an elaborate ruse in twisting sentences to fit your own perspective. There's no true give and take -- let alone any basis for "understanding."

You can mark down whatever you like on your "scorecard."

[ed_getka]

bump

[Bill_McBride]

Ed, did you bump this to encourage more badinage between two of the best?  

[ed_getka]

Bill,
   No intent to incite a riot. I was just wading through some old threads looking for something, and the easiest way to save something I want to reread is to bump it forward so I can find it later. I just wanted to think back on SE after having had a while to digest it now and see how my thoughts of the course jive with this discussion.

[Eric Franzen]

Ed,

I don't mind the bumping of threads, but still can't resist to recommend to create an account at http://del.icio.us/ - which is an far more easier way to store, share and organize URL:s.

[ForkaB]

Eric

That is a VERY dangerous URL--it implies that there is a life beyond GCA.com, even on the internet!

[Eric Franzen]

Rich,

I have been observing Ed closely (keeping detailed journals on his behaviour in different situations) for the last couple of months. My conclusion is that he might be ready now. The reference to del.icio.us is just a small piece in a bigger scheme, where I will program him to infiltrate bombsquadgolfers.com with long rants about the creation of Merion East.

[ed_getka]

Eric,
   You must be confusing me with someone else. I haven't had ANY rants about the creation of Merion East. I have had rants about other things to be sure, just not that one.
   Thanks for the tip about storing threads. I'll give it a try.

[Eric Franzen]

Eric,
   You must be confusing me with someone else. I haven't had ANY rants about the creation of Merion East.

Thats why I'll have to program you first. I am almost done with Jay Flemma now after convincing him that his cat is a registered poster on this board...

Now say "Wilson and the committee went to NGLA" backwards to yourself five hundred times today to clear the first phase of "our" program.

Seriously: del.icio.us is a great tool for organizing URL:s by tags. You can also download browser plugins that allows you to store URL:s in your account by clicking on them.    

[Tom Huckaby]

Seriously: del.icio.us is a great tool for organizing URL:s by tags. You can also download browser plugins that allows you to store URL:s in your account by clicking on them.    

Eric:  the entire Yahoo! organization extends its appreciation for your endorsement of our product.

And keep at the programming, too - it is working wonders.

 

[ed_getka]

Eric,
   The mistake you techno-savvy types make is assuming that the rest of the world understands what you are talking about. I am much closer to being a Luddite than to being computer literate. I'm hoping as my boys become older they will drag me into the 21st century with them.