[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

I was thinking of "penal golf architecture" in the classic definition of a design which contains many hazards placed to punish a bad shot -- that would refer not only to cross-bunkers but to bunkers bracketing the sides of the fairway.  There are not many courses in the world which don't fall back on that sort of architecture on at least a few holes.

I tried to make the point in "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" that penal hazards are not the same as penal design, and that in fact a truly strategic design requires hazards that dish out a really severe penalty.  If there is really little risk to a hazard because you can recover easily, then it doesn't make any difference whether you flirt with it or not.

[Brent Hutto]

In the spirit of answering the subject of this thread, I'd offer the following observations concerning penal golf courses as opposed to penal hazards which can be found on most any kind of course...

a) If a player's score for a round is almost entirely determined by the number of poor shots he played, that's a penal course.

b) If a player's score for a round is strongly influenced by both the number of poor shots and the number of outstanding and/or heroic shots played, that's not a penal course.

Or stated another way, a penal course is one that demands certain shots and rigorously measures their correct execution. This is why golfers at the highest levels can find somewhat penal courses or course setups to be legitimate venues for important tournaments. At their level, the ability to execute tough shots under pressure is worth assessing (even if it isn't always exciting to watch).

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tom - that's a very clear and helpful way to think about it. "Anatomy" was my first book on gca, but there must've been too much there for me to have it all stick.    

I'm starting to understand why some here place such a high premium on acquiring (over time, and in different playing condition) a real familiarity with a golf course; each of the good ones is unique....and I guess defy easy labelling (maybe especially by an average golfer like me).  

Peter

[Doug Siebert]

Sean,

Just because I shoot 75 one day and 95 the next doesn't have anything to do with my ability.  I still had the ability to make all the same shots I hit when I shot the 75 on the day I shot the 95, but didn't execute.  A player who would shoot 95 as their best round and 115 as their worst would likely not possess the ability to hit some of the shots which I'm capable of.   Its possible he can't even hit some shots on his best day I can still fall back on on my worst.  If he can only carry it 210 yards, then a 180 yard carry has the potential to be quite penal for him, especially if he plays into the wind.  I'd need to play into a hurricane to be worried about that carry.

Just because you and Tiger play the same course doesn't mean that it can't be penal for you and not for him.  A guy who slices his drives probably finds TOC pretty penal, what with OB to the right on almost every hole.  Tiger isn't worried about OB there.  Similar for a typical guy who isn't good from the sand and is deathly afraid of deep pot bunkers, he might take several shots to escape if he finds one, making them quite penal for him.

[BCrosby]

I tried to make the point in "The Anatomy of a Golf Course" that penal hazards are not the same as penal design, and that in fact a truly strategic design requires hazards that dish out a really severe penalty.  If there is really little risk to a hazard because you can recover easily, then it doesn't make any difference whether you flirt with it or not.

Tom's distinction is essential when discussing this topic. A well designed strategic course reguires penal hazards. If it doesn't have them the strategic choices don't have teeth.

The issue is not the intrinsic nature of the hazards themselves. The issue is their function.

Bob

[Jim Bearden]

Pete Dye

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()