Which Deceptive Features Stand Up to Frequent Play?

[Phil Benedict]

This is a bit of a blast from the past.

A couple of weeks ago I was down at Pine Needles.  The 4th is an uphill par 4.  Playing the course for maybe the 10th time, I hit a decent drive into the right rough, which is pretty benign at this time of year.  There was (is) a bunker directly in my line to the green.  Looking up the hill the bunker looked like it ran right up to the green, when in fact it's about 10-yards short of the green.  Even though I knew the distance to the pin, the bunker created some doubt and influenced the way I hit the shot, which came up about 5 yards short of the green.

Maybe if I played the course all the time I would make the adjustment, but deception clearly worked in this case despite the fact that I have some familiarity with the hole.

[Jeff Doerr]

Anything which makes a green deceptive to read is good forever, unless the golfer goes out with a level.

That must include instances where the architect used the pretty much the same grass "through the green," as in fescue fairways, fescue surrounds, and fescue greens. Can't even figure which way is $%^@ UP, much less break -- brutal from any distance approach position...



Mark

Mark, where is this at?

Thanks, Jeff

[Ken Moum]

There is another thread lamenting the decline in the use of deceptive features in GCA.  I wonder about the relevence of deception once a player gains some familiarity with a course.  For example, how long does it take to figure out that a bunker that appears at first look to front a green is actually well short of the green, and adjust accordingly?  Once a player makes this adjustment, the bunker becomes superfluous except regarding mishit shots.

Even with an accurate yardage, and knowledge of the fact that the bunker is well short of the green, that setup has the ability to cause a short-circuit in a player's brain. And THAT's the real genius of such a hole.

Likewise, a skylined green like the ones at the Ross course I play, cause consternation. Not being able to see the bottom of the flagstick makes it hard to believe that you need THAT much club to get to a back hole location.

Also, the left front bunker on #18 at ANGC. If you bail out short left there, you can't see ANYTHING except the face of that bunker. Knowing what's behind it doesn't change the disorienting effect of that.

K

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff,

Not so fast grasshopper! Try this one on for size; doesn't the green look like it just goes on and on to the left?



Mark

[Jason McNamara]

To what extent can an architect design swirling winds into a hole, where not much of anything is felt on the tee, but the ball can do anything once up in the wind?  Or perhaps a better question, how often does such a hole play the way an architect plans it to play?

"Misaligned" tee boxes drive me nuts, but I do see their use (ok, not every hole)... but especially as one moves further back.

[Joe Hancock]

The use of elevation change is so simple, yet almost always confusing to the golfer. For my game, it seems the uphill shot is always the situation most difficult to club correctly.

Joe

[Dan_Callahan]

I've played my former home course hundreds of times. However, there is a short par 4 with one of the most difficult greens I've ever seen. At first glance, it doesn't look like anything special . . . smallish with a back to front cant. However, putts across the green actually break up the hill (or at least you would swear it is uphill). No matter how many times I played it, I could never convince myself that the break was the opposite of what my eyes were telling me.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think the most deceptive aspect — that holds up — is concealment. When you hide a portion of the target it cannot be 100% learned...e.g., you cannot have assurances that the flagstick or target is exactly as you imagine it or "know" it to be. I have been accused of (often) leaving bunps and features fronting greens that allow for a few hidden hole locations. Here is an example of one that still puzzles players.

[archie_struthers]

 


nothing works much better than a good false front , a design feature that frustrates all  levels of player

[Forrest Richardson]

A false front works, but once it is known I am not sure it stands up to frustrate a regular player at the course. Also, a false front is typically only troublesome if the approach shot or the hole location are subject to its wrath.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jeff,

Barnbougle Dunes!

Mark

[Phil Benedict]

A false front works, but once it is known I am not sure it stands up to frustrate a regular player at the course. Also, a false front is typically only troublesome if the approach shot or the hole location are subject to its wrath.

Try telling Luke Donald about false fronts.

[Mark Bourgeois]

A false front works, but once it is known I am not sure it stands up to frustrate a regular player at the course. Also, a false front is typically only troublesome if the approach shot or the hole location are subject to its wrath.

Try telling Luke Donald about false fronts.

Phil, is he seeing Pamela Anderson?

[TEPaul]

Phil Benedict:

Without question the deceptive feature that stands up to frequent play best are greens where putts break uphill.

[TEPaul]

Mark Bourgeois:

I don't care how false Pamela Anderson's front is---I'd like to approach it and putt on it for a minimum of about fifteen minutes anyway.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Was it Rick Reilly who said, "You know it's all fake, but you can't help admire the effort."

Regarding false fronts, those are deceptive at most once, yes?

When the outline of the green is impossible to choose, though, and there's a false front, that can discombobulate ya:




Close up:


Mark