[George Bahto]

I think Geoff has it right - width - to which I would add "diagonal" hazarding to contended with - which is the heart of Macdonald's idea of what most great holes should have.

Problem is, of course, how do you get the width in today's world.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Are you suggesting the top shot bunker (30-50 yards in front of the tee) presents a choice or quandry? It seems to me that is perfect illustration of feature created to give the poorer golfer a thrill.

I agree with you when you said, "many golfers and even those like us who really study architecture seem all too prone to look for explicit and understandable meaning (strategies etc) too often."

When studying their art didn't those first 'modern' architects look toward the famous links, indentifying what features worked, which features created interest, which features produced the most thrills? And in doing so didn't they identify a number of elements that seemed to present intersting strategies, for example: diagonal hazards, central hazards, hazards placed en echelon (really the essense of randomness), interesting contours though the green, undulating greens, side sloped greens, angled greens, etc.

The other element they found on those links was randomness, which always made these courses interesting. They understood a hazard designed for certain level of golfer many times has no effect on another level (one of the lessons learned form the steeple chase dark age designs). They were well aware conditions change from year to year or day to day or hour to hour. Changing wind effects the strategy of hole, as does the firmness of the ground and progress in technology. The best links were able to remain interesting due to randomness, in both placement hazards and contours.

So while they no doubt utilized many strategic schemes or formulas, they also presented thrills to the poorer golfer and emplemented random features. The more randomness, the more flexible the design and the more apt the course will remain interesting long term.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I wasn't going off the deep end.  I was merely trying to illustrate the "Quandries" faced by all levels of golfers on the first hole and all other holes at NGLA.

This is where the playing experience can be of great assistance in understanding a hole.  Each hole at NGLA presents a variety of choices for every level of golfer.

As I stated above, even 5 yard shots can be complicated, with an abundant variety of shot selections, for every level of golfer, to be considered.

If that's not a quandry, I don't know what is.

I think that's what makes NGLA so much fun to play.

You can stand 50 yards from quite a few greens and not know what to do, and you can experiment with a variety of shots, just for the fun of it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Every shot is a quandry? That's great, I was only trying to determine how you would compare your quandry on the 1st to those of limited skill. It sounds like simply inserting tee into ground represents a quandry.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I certainly would never deny that randomness is an excellent strategy producer for all levels of golfers--one of the best, in fact!

It's simply not the only one or the only good one, though, in my opinion. I just see so many interesting and available ways to create strategies for all levels of golfers--so many combinations of possibilities and arrangements many of which may not even utilize randomness (which generally is bunker placement or random bunker arrangement).

One of my very favorite if it's designed cleverly enough to have real meaning in scoring outcome would be a hole such as the newly done #12 Rustic Canyon!

I think this type of arrangement has true asset and usefulness in a strategic sense and for this reason. It seems to me that most modern golfers will stand on a tee (or any shot) and feel they need some visual key or penal area to avoid to help them create their strategy.

But what if there is none like the enormously wide and wide open--no penal features in other words--fairway of #12 Rustic Canyon? What would most golfers think of that?

Many would probably think the hole, or at least the drive, is weak because there are seemingly no problems to solve on that drive alone! But they would be wrong if the hole was well conceived, as I believe #12 is!

Other, smarter golfers (of any level for that matter) would probably think that something was up like the designer was trying to possibly trick them into a sense of false security and if they at least thought that they would be right and about half way home strategically!

The real thinking (strategic) golfer of any level would analyze where the problems to solve would be and determine that perhaps they would be at the green and particularly the pin as it's the green and particular pin position on this hole that's essentially supposed to cast most all the strategy two or even three shots back all the way to the tee shot.

Does a hole like this use randomness of any kind? Not really other than the random choice of any golfing level to express themselves any way they see fit to prepare themselves to properly take on perhaps the only strategy creating feature--which would be where that flag was in relation to all that green is!

Something like that has added benefit, in my opinion, because it might teach any golfer that strategy does not really need to be presented to them even with randomly created problems to solve on each and every shot and that their strategy really is their own to determine, as Behr suggested-- with a real freedom of expression! Holes like this help golfers understand that strategy is not necessarily incremental (incremental problems that have to be solved on each shot) but more progressive.

Of course as primarily a "second shot architect" Ross was very good at this type of thing!

[TEPaul]

Tom:

I can't imagine why you would say inserting tee into ground represents a "quandry" for some level of golfer insofar as what Pat Mucci has said.

I'm not sure either that it's up to Pat to explain to you what the "quandry" is for some golfer with a skill level much less or different than his own.

Possibly that lesser skill level might not have any semblance of recognition of a "quandry" at all. But if they don't they will probably make a series of mental errors of various kinds as they play the course as even a good player might if he doesn't think he has any "quandry" either on a course such as NGLA.

All "quandry" is is an application of some level of course management no matter the level of player in an attempt to save strokes. The better the golf course and it's overall architecture is the more this strategy recognition or quandry should show itself and if any golfer doesn't recognize that on a good course they just won't do so well.

There's nothing wrong with discussing specifics of any hole for any level of golfer but this notion of saying that strategy is becoming totally obsolete or the notion of failing to recognize that there are all kinds of equations between the risks and rewards of all kinds of situations as any level progresses around a very good golf course is becoming slightly ridiculous, in my opinon!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
The 12th at Rustic Canyon sounds like a very interesting hole. Since it relates to the subject of thread - what is the risk/reward equation on the tee?

If I'm not mistaken Pat claimed all shots present a quandry, which would seem to lessen the importance of architeture. Are you saying the poor player is incapable of making a sound strategic choice? That they are presented with a choice (quandry) on the 1st tee but do not recognize it. Isn't that one of the realities of strategic design - give the duffer an alternative route, not a quandry. His game is his own quandry, no need to pile on!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

What is the risk/reward equation on Rustic's #12 tee? Conceptually, anyway, the risk/reward equation on the tee is to put your tee shot anywhere on a big wide unencumbered fairway that you think will make your second shot easiest to a complicated green with pin locations that have real meaning as to where you put your tee shot!

On your second paragraph, of course I'm not saying the poor player is incapable of making a sound strategic choice. I've said nothing of the kind. I'm saying that the poor player is just as capable of making strategic choices in the context of his own game and abilities on the tee of NGLA's #1 as I am, you are, Pat is, or Tiger Woods is! And I'm also saying, like the rest of us, he should probably do so.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Although I find your formula excellent - defining the strategy of a particular shot by identifying the 'quandry point'. Many times very good strategic golf holes involve confusion, deception and indecision. Where choice is not well-defined. For example the 12th at Rustic Canyon, where the quandry on the tee is there is no well defined risk/reward choice or quandry.

Also a hole that has a specific feature which dictates choice is only going to dictate strategy to a specific level of golfer. Those unable to reach the feature do not face a quandry point. And what happens as conditions change, does the quandry point become obsolete. Didn't many architects address this by intoducing random features in conjucntion with the defined scheme? Giving the duffer thrills, while at the same time dealing with changing conditions. Would you consider the absence of bunkers as an extreme form of random bunkering?

I also believe those early golfers limited the risk/reward of the duffer, preferring to give him thrills. They understood choice was only interesting to those with a reasonable ability to carry out the options.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Having been a duffer in the early part of my golfing life, and
returning to a duffer in the later part of my golfing life, I think I'm qualified to speak for the duffer as well as the better player.

Have you ever played NGLA ?

Rather than argue or nit-pick over every explanation I've offered you with regard to the strategy and architectural genius found at NGLA........... PLAY THE GOLF COURSE,
then question my statements and offer your opinions.

Disputing comments from people who have played golf courses innumerably, (Bethpage, Hollywood, Yale, NGLA) on courses you've never played, seems to be your particular modis operendi.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Its diffcult to dispute something that has never been explained. I'm still waiting for the answer my oritginal question regarding the exact quandry faced by the duffer on the 1st and how it compares to your own.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I see the problem.

READING COMPREHENSION  

Have someone read and explain the posts to you.  

[redanman]

Is the distillation of the equation "Does the amount of risk justify the amount of reward?"  

This is basically what Robert Trent Jones espoused in his design philosophy, yet he contnually comes under fire here for aesthetic reasons and is rarely if ever discussed when the topic is strategy.

A more cautious tee shot leaves one a more challenging second (Or second and third combo on a par 5) or a more daring tee shot rewards one with a more straightforward second describes many a Jones hole, no?

One of the best holes I saw this year to fit this description was the first par 5 (#4) at Glen Mills, a hole loved by at least 5 who I can think of off the top of the noggin just now who post here.  Reminded me of Jones philosophy.  Not everyone has these options open to them.  

Did he invent it or continuously practice it?  I think not, but he described it well.

Mark Fine will complain, but the #11 at Lehigh which he loves so dearly, and we disagree so strongly about,  only offers strategic options for the more highly skilled player and becomes a slog for the less talented player.


The Old Course with its apparently randomly placed bunkers dictating a multitude of ways to play virtually every hole may do it best.  There likely lies a key to making strategy available to all, the same sort of strategic options one sees at NGLA for all save the technologically aided elite player.

But I like the concept of a reward fitting to the risk-say risk a whole shot or two to gain a half or whole shot.

Mathematically, the equation may be 2:1.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Thanks. I re-read it and you did say there was an easy route for the duffer. Which is exactly my point -- they have no choice or quandary. So we agree.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I wrote you a good post and then lost it but I'll write it again later.

But do you really think that the duffer has no choice at all on the first tee of NGLA, nothing to think about, no decisions to make at all, no quandry whatsoever? Have you ever seen that hole? And if you have why would you think they have nothing to think about? Do you really think there's some kind of "yellow brick road" down the first hole and all the way around NGLA for the duffer?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

In all seriousness, your question is foolish, and cannot be addressed with a simple, universal response.

You would have me lump the infinite variety of play of virtually every high handicap player, "Duffer", into one monolithic "game", method of play, and strategic challenge.  That is impossible.

"Duffers" have an infinite variety of golf games.
Some are long and wrong with every club, others are short and wrong, others drive well, hit irons poorly, others hit irons well, chip and putt poorly, and on and on and on and on.

The lower the handicap, the more the games of players and shot patterns merge.  Whereas the games and shot patterns of "Duffers" are more divergent.

TEPaul,

Tom MacWood has a history of being an expert on golf courses he's never played, hence he's able to make these judgements, sight unseen.

You and I seem to think that NGLA offers an abundance of challenge, and quandries for every level of golfer, but what do we know, we've only played it a few hundred times.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Hell if I know. You tell me.

I was simply trying to get Pat to answer the question, which he said he answered and now says he can't answer.  

I don't really give a crap what the duffers choice is on the first tee. And I don't think anyone else does either. Next question!

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I'm more than willing to try to answer any question you may have regarding NGLA and a duffer, for instance, but I'm not exactly sure what your question(s) are.

The post to you that I mentioned I'd lost I was basically trying to understand what it is exactly you are asking.

If you're asking me to explain what the options, decision, quandries and strategies may be for a duffer at NGLA or even on #1 at NGLA I will certainly try.

For a duffer off the first tee I would suppose he would be thinking of the most reasonable method to clear the rough ground from the tee to the fairway!

When you stand on that tee your orientation of where even to aim or hit your drive is anything but simple and straight forward. You can see the green way off to the left and the reasonable fairway landing area what seems considerably off to your right. There are also some blind and quite penal bunkers at the base of the fairway just off it left! A duffer too is aware they're there and how to avoid them (distance and direction options)?? It's so common on that tee shot to think you've hit a good drive on the correct line and find when you get down there that you're in one of those bunkers!

I've found that when I hit a tee shot there (I've only ever hit a 2 iron) that I feel sometimes I've driven it too far right but when I get down there it's in the middle. A few times I've thought I hit it on a better line an I'm in those bunkers.

These would or could be the same quandries for the duffer on the tee, I would think. In other words, where to aim, what club to do it with etc, etc.

And for a duffer on the second shot that might be thinking strategically, there is really so much to consider as to be too great to go into.

But all the various options, decisions, choices, thought processes on this hole are quite nuancy but certainly not in the slightest bit meaningless (when it comes to being penalized and losing shots or not) or simple, certainly for the duffer! It would be even likely for a duffer on #1 to hit some quite good shots (for his ability) and make a huge number nonetheless!

So I don't know what more I can say to you to explain a duffer's outlook on this hole and what might and probably should be going through his mind and creating various "quandries" for him.

Just like for a good player though, I think the hole offers plenty of them!

Next question! (if that was your first question!).

Just reread your last post Tom. If you aren't interested in or don't give a crap about the duffer's concerns at NGLA or on NGLA's #1 tee or hole then why are you asking us to explain to you what they are?

[Steve Lang]

Y'all have been going at it all day.  I've played 36 holes, had dinner and gone to a movie.  I am intrigued to put all these great thoughts and insights into a real equation with variables, constants, and coefficients...I read this thread to include both general and particular solutions to playability-strategy concerns, with elements of chaos theory thrown in to account for the quandry factor and Sociology 101 for some low/high handicap continuity/adaptability/learning concepts.  

I don't beleive there is truly any randomness in course design, only challenge being offered up, whether around the gradeschool playground or at a historic venue.  Have you seen Robin William's HBO special discussion about the origins of golf ?

From my experience, at TOC, the duffer and good player can always go left and stay away from anything with a name on it... or run it up and over the Principle's Nose by accident...  

In the whole, in the moment, can we put the ball in the hole,... it seems to be a differential equation, with dimensionless factors.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I reread your posts on this page and I certainly do agree that randomness (of bunkering and such) is most definitely a very good thing--a time tested and extremely effective method of creating adaptable and variable strategies for all golfers.

I also agree with you that the game of a true duffer is itself probably far too random for any architect to be concerned with in creating strategic concepts and so forth. More than a few actually wrote that there was no particular need to consider architectural features and designs, schemes and concepts for the duffer as his own game made the game complex and problem-ridden enough.

It seems to me that the  primary consideration of the good archtect for the duffer was to at least provide some way for him to progress if he was able to execute a reasonable shot in any normal situation and just leave it at that.

Ross certainly did design, though, I believe, for the weaker player by the use of things like fore (top shot) bunkering 100yds or so from many tees and also with carry bunkering 30-50 yards from greens.

It's tragic that so many of those features (particularly top shot bunkering) has been removed from so many of his courses. The rationale was that it was not necessary as it was not functional for better or good players! The other side of that coin was that it actually was unfair to the weaker player and the duffer too!

These things were Ross's design effort to make things interesting and challenging to a very different level of golfer and they became misunderstood, ignored and removed!

And in the case of my course, at least, the complete removal of all the "topped shot" bunkering was not the thought or work of some green committee--it was the distinct recommendation of an otherwise well thought of architect in the late 1940s for the very reasons I just cited!

And so it was all removed! Gil Hanse wanted very much to put it all back! The recommendation was refused by our so called Master Plan Committee for the very same reasons as Wayne Stiles had given 55 years before and no one on the committee (except me) was aware that Wayne Sitles ever had made that recommendation for their removal! And so something Ross obviously felt was of interest and challenge to the duffer will probably never be put back and a small portion of his effort to make golf more "democratic" in interest will be gone from our course forever, I guess!

If I asked again that the club consider putting them back a thoughtful committee person might say that they just aren't necessary as the game of the duffer is problem enough for him and he doesn't really need any additional architectural feature (piled on to him as you said).

So who the hell knows? I guess any of us can make any case for anything, if we try hard enough!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
The first time I asked the question I was interested in the answer -- as it related to the overall discussion. However I wasn't really interested into turning the thread into one discusing the relative merits of NGLA. That's been covered a few hundred times.

The 2nd time I asked the question, I was still relatively interested in the answer, but I figured either Pat didn't know the answer or didn't like the answer.

The 3rd time I asked it, after my reading comprehension was questioned, I thought it might be time to shut it down.

The 4th time, after Pat said it was a foolish question and couldn't be answered, I really didn't give a crap.

And so it goes with Pat, a simple question will often de-rail an interesting topic, spinning it out of control. Which is soon followed by some crazy misrepresentation of what I've said or haven't said about Bethpage, Hollywood, Yale, The Bridge, etc., etc.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

I do understand! Sometimes we all have a hard time understanding the answers and even the questions! It probably doesn't make either less valid or interesting though!

It's probably just another instance of the immortal words of the chain gang boss to Cool Hand Luke:

"Well now, What we have heeaah, is a failya to communicate!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Though I don't know how genuine your question was,
I do know it was foolish.

How can you ask me to lump the infinite variety of golf games played by "duffers" into one prototype game played by the "DUFFER" ?

If you had read and comprehended an earlier post I made on this thread, I indicated that the player/duffer had several decisions to make, quandries if you will.  

Does he attempt the heroic route
Does he attempt the reasonable route
Does he attempt the safe route.

Depending on his above choice, does attempt to get closer to the left side bunkering, making the hole shorter ?
Does he attempt to hit to the flatter part of the fairway.
Does he attempt to hit over the longer or shorter carry of tall grass/rough.

Does he look at all the trouble confronting him from the tee and worry, or is he more worried about the second shot, or what he will do when he gets to that intimidating green ?

The "Duffer" is confronted with "quandry" at every level.

Instead of trying to find fault with, or nit-pick the statements of people who have played the golf course a few times, accept them at their word.

Or, as Tom Paul stated, do you think there's a yellow brick road leading from the tee to the green for the "duffer" ?

Lastly, you have a history of being critical, or making judgements on courses you've never seen.
Perhaps you've forgotten your discussions with Geoff Childs relative to Bethpage and Yale, Matt Ward relative to the bridge and others, and my discussions with you relative to Hollywood and Atlantic.
In all instances, despite the fact that you've never played any of those courses, you were critical and argued about their architecture, club politics and intent and their playability.

I think I can differentiate between a genuine question and a "cute" question that attempts to "mousetrap" a poster.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I do recall documenting the changes to Hollywood and Bethpage - obviously playing the course numerous times doesn't help when it comes to documenting historical changes -- many that occured before we were born or at least before I was born.    (You took exception, but were not able to refute anything I found) I didn't comment on the relative merits of either course - actually I have said that both courses look to be wonderful golf courses in their present form.

I do recall commenting on Macdonald's ability to utilize the natural features of the site at Yale. (you were the only person who took exception to that comment) I never commented on the relative merits of the course.

And I was never involved in The Bridge fiasco and I have never commented on that course. (you obviously have me confused with someone else)

I fondly remember the Hollywood thread, because you challenged me to show any sign of Rees' work and frankly I was shocked how much he did there. After the claims you had made for months, I was convinced you knew what had actually taken place at Hollywood.

If pointing our historical changes is criticism, than I was critical. But that criticism comes from the perspective of someone interested in architectural history. I am critical when courses of historical architectural importance are unnecessarily altered or not restored when the opportunity is presented - like the 12th at GCGC.(oddly you've never had problem with that) There is a big difference between that type of criticism and the rating of a course's realtive merits.

So I would appreciate it if you stop mischaracterizing what I've said and done. We may disagree on certain points or you may not like what I have dug up, but there is no reason to resort to those kind of tactics whenever the going gets tough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Your statement relative to MacDonald utilizing the natural features at Yale is indicative of the importance of seeing a golf course before commenting on it.

Yale is a close to an artificially constructed golf course as you can get.  MacDonald's genius was seeing holes where none existed, and blasting enormous amounts of rock and moving dirt to build them.

At both Atlantic and Hollywood you commented on the playability of the courses, and Rees work to the detriment of the courses, without ever having layed eyes on them.

Comparing aerials isn't the same as playing the golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()