It's hard to create strategy by dictating the width of target areas

[Matt_Cohn]

The thread about turning the dogleg early got me thinking. In principle, it's a good idea. But in practice, it's hard to execute. It's likely that the fairway past the dogleg will either be so difficult to hit with a driver that it's not worth trying; or else forgiving enough that there's no real reason to lay up.

Another example: bottleneck holes. If the bottleneck is small enough, everyone will lay up. If it's just a few yards larger, everyone will hit driver.

Finally, consider double-fairway holes. The fact is, very few of them are great. (Quick, name one?!) On most of them, the rewarding side is either not risky enough (#8 at Riviera), or else so risky that it's hardly even an option (#12 at Talking Stick). When was the last time you stood on the tee of a double-fairway hole truly torn about which line to take?

My conclusion: Holes that rely on specific widths in different target areas to create strategic options are very, very difficult to get right - and most of them aren't right.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying that if the relative widths are even a couple of yards off, the strategic balance is lost. And let's not even talk about what happens in different wind or ground conditions!

By the way, how about the corollary: the most foolproof strategic hole designs would function just as well if the fairway were 100 yards wide.)

Thoughts?

[Matt_Cohn]

bizznump

(that means bump)

[James Bennett]

Matt

what about diagonal hazards that split the fairway with varying widths depending on the length off the tee?  That is, the fairway width is not fixed.  If the effective length of the hole varied from time to time (fromthe wind direction changing, or alternate tees) and the green favoured one side or the other for the approach from the fairway depending on the pin situation, or perhaps favoured one side (the shorter side?) by the way the green was sloped, then would that meet your strategy dictate?

Of course, if the green was 'holding' (wet ), then the answer would be less interesting.

James B

[Greg Tallman]

Finally, consider double-fairway holes. The fact is, very few of them are great. (Quick, name one?!) On most of them, the rewarding side is either not risky enough (#8 at Riviera), or else so risky that it's hardly even an option (#12 at Talking Stick). When was the last time you stood on the tee of a double-fairway hole truly torn about which line to take?

Every time I play the 11th on The Ocean Course at Cabo del Sol... I am becoming rather precise with the 40-60 yard shot from a waste area over a 10 foot deep bunker that generally follows my indecisiveness.

[Jason Topp]

I agree with your analysis of bottle neck and double fairway holes.  

I'm not positive it leads to the generalization you suggest.  

On universally acclaimed great strategic holes, if the fairway were of unlimited width, would it take away from the hole?

10 Riviera?

I do not know

14 TOC
16 TOC
17 TOC

 - all of these need the OB on the right as well as incentive to try and hit it right (green openings, pinching bunkers, level lies, shorter distances) to work.  In some respects, these hazards dictate the width of target area.  Perhaps the reason it is successful at St. Andrews is because there are series of fairway hazards at a variety of lengths as opposed to a single pinch point.


13th Augusta National?

- It seems to me that if the fairway were 100 yards wide, you would have the same hole.

[JESII]

Matt,


I think the risk/reward equation can shift one way or the other based on the green complex. I do not know the 8th at Riviera or the 12th at Talking Stick so you tell me...could the risk/reward scale shift with a slightly different green setup or maintenance practice?

[Matt_Cohn]

Jason,

I think the five holes that you mentioned are good examples: on 10 at Riviera and 13 at Augusta, the fairway could be expanced 100 yards to the right and holes would work great. On the holes at TOC, I think the fairways could be expanded 100 yards to the left (they still need the OB right!) and the holes would work well.

JES,

Here's #12 at Talking Stick:


The left fairway is so small, next to the fence, that it's basically stupid to aim at it no matter what the angles are.

My hypothesis is this: because the balance of the hole's strategic options depends so much on the exact width of each fairway, there was almost zero chance that the hole would actually give the players pause from the tee. Inevitably, the left fairway would either be too narrow or too wide - and in this case, that's what happened.

Greg,

What's 11 at Cabo like?

[Tags:]

Tags: