The truth of the "risk/reward" concept in golf and architecture?

[TEPaul]

What is the risk/reward concept in golf and architecture and what-all does it involve or should involve?

Does it have various equations and applications?

I'd submit that perhaps the best of the "risk/reward" concept in golf and architecture is when there exists plenty of opportunity for a golfer to feel he if he does not want to accept risk, or some degree of it, he does not have to. And also that he understands, to some extent, that he is thereby giving up some reward either immediately or perhaps down the line.

Isn't this essentially what so-called "strategic" golf and architecture is about?

If the inevitability of accepting risk exists I'd think this is more a form of what some of us call "penal" golf and architecture. On the other hand, some of us have come to call this form "shot testing".

To what extent should good golf and architecture have one or the other or perhaps both?

What do you think, particularly about the entire concept of risk and reward in golf or perhaps the occasional lack of it, at the very least in some single shot increments?

I'd submit that some of the best courses in the world have a pretty good combination of both.

[Tom_Doak]

I must say I hate that "risk/reward" term being used as an adjective in descriptions of golf holes.  The usage makes me cringe.

Moreover, it implies that no hole is good unless there are severe hazards to be challenged and black-and-white decisions to be made, when I think what modern golf needs more of are holes that reward position play in a subtler, gray-shaded way.

[Joe Bausch]

I'd submit that perhaps the best of the "risk/reward" concept in golf and architecture is when there exists plenty of opportunity for a golfer to feel he if he does not want to accept risk, or some degree of it, he does not have to. And also that he understands, to some extent, that he is thereby giving up some reward either immediately or perhaps down the line.

Isn't this essentially what so-called "strategic" golf and architecture is about?

Yes.  I think this could be a very good thread Tom!  

Your description got me thinking of a hole that wonderfully fits your definition.  And since I'm planning another Spring break trip, perhaps to central Florida again, then perhaps you know where I'm going:  #15 at Fazio's World Woods Pine Barrens:

http://www.worldwoods.com/fw/main/default.asp?DocID=169

The 'safe' play off the tee is left, but it leads to a much more demanding short iron in.  Playing right is more daunting, but leaves a much simpler shot in.  And, for icing on the cake, this hole plays around 300 yards downhill, frequently downwind, so trying to drive it becomes an option for bigger hitters.

[James Edwards]

Tom Doak:

Yes, an example of your "greyish" area of position as opposed to hazard carrying generic holes.. is the 1st at RStG (Sandwich).

Almost all the golfers in the Open hit driver and at the driver pinch point it rolled off either left into the rough or right into the thicker stuff around ""the kitchen"" and every golfer was bitching about the severity of the test... Yes, pro golfers were arguing about the severity of the test.

...until our favourite son, Mr Woods and at the time, his greatest rival, Vijah decided that on the final day they would employ completely different strategies with the same result...Woods  would hit a long iron into the flatter area short of the kitchen and a 6 iron to 20 ft or so, Vijah would hit Driver into the narrow gap and it rolls off into the rough on the left and hits a wedge to 15 odd feet and they both make 3...  

Woods later said, i can hit the fairway with an iron all day, driver could get me in trouble (lost ball - day 1 on RHS)... very basic hole, no bunkering around the fairway, but a cleverly designed feature which determines strategy...

ah thank you  

[BCrosby]

Tom D -

I not sure what you mean by a "subtler, gray-shaded way"?

Do you mean that the best positional play is hard to identify? Or do you mean that the best positions don't, in fact, yield the strategic payoffs that they appear to?

TEP -

I think a useful way of thinking about the strategic - penal distinction is that in the case of the former, the negotiation of hazards is usually optional (if you opt out early on the hole, however, the next rung of hazards are often mandatory). On a classic penal hole the negotiation of hazards is mandatory on each shot.

Hazards on both kinds of courses can be equally vicious. In fact you could make the case that hazards ought to have bigger teeth on a good strategic hole. Because you have the choice of not messing with them, more and better teeth jacks up the voltage on the strategic choice meter.

Agreed that a good course has some mix of both, but my preferences run to over-loading the good strategic holes and skimping on the penal ones.

Bob  

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

What I mean by gray-shaded is that the ideal position would be as far left as you can go, and every little bit you go to the right, the next shot gets a little harder ... but it's not a "carry this or you have to hit it over to that other fairway" kind of hole like the 15th at World Woods.  

Incidentally, I don't like the 15th at World Woods at all ... it's like Nicklaus' 13th at Desert Highlands ... the short hitter can't make the carry and has to play safe leaving an approach he can't hit.

[AndrewB]

What I mean by gray-shaded is that the ideal position would be as far left as you can go, and every little bit you go to the right, the next shot gets a little harder ... but it's not a "carry this or you have to hit it over to that other fairway" kind of hole like the 15th at World Woods.

Do you mind giving a few examples of holes that employ this gray-shadedness particularly well?

[Rich Goodale]

TomP

To me, risk/reward is essential to golf and therefore to golf course architecture.  I don't think it is a binary sort of thing as TomD implies, but rather a continuum, and it is an element of every golf shot from the drive to the tap-in (ask Hale Irwin about the latter).  It also varies between individuals depending on their relative capabilities, knowledge and propensity to take risk.  It will also vary between days and even on the day for individuals.

Binary risk/reward is boring (i.e. the back tees at #18 at Merion where you either can make the carry or cannot (and then must chip, Runyan-like, to the forward tees).  Interesting risk is fractional, i.e:

--how much can I carry on a hole with a diagonal centre-line hazard?
--should I lag the putt or risk a 3-putt?
--should I play my second shot on a long hole for position, or try to reach the green?

Instinctively each of us "calculates" risk/reward on each shot, and the most robust courses give us more variables and options to think about as we do so.

I don't think that clever risk/reward design necessarily defines "greatness" but I do think that it is a good proxy for "fun."

[Peter Pallotta]

Nice post, Rich. The 'continuum' seems the best way to describe it, and the diagonal ridge in the fairway a good example of it.  The idea of subtlety is something I've been thinking a bit about; I equate it with peacefulness and the natural, and with the need (and pleasure) of paying attention.  I imagine the most subtle of all risk-reward holes might be something like a mid-length Par 4 with a fairly wide, gradually narrowing, and bunkerless fairway; and a large and bunkerless green that's divided in half by a sharply diagonal but very modest ridge, almost imperceptible from the fairway unless you're quite close to it. On a hole like this, the risk-reward 'ratio' would be quite low; only repeated play might even make it at all evident. That's okay by me; actually, that's more than just okay - if that hole were the product of the strictest minimalsim especially, I think there'd be some magic in it. But I guess the consensus opinion is that if an architect built too many holes like that he'd soon be out of a job, or at least out of the running for the best jobs/sites.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Tom D's notion of graduated strategy is interesting.

I think one of the hardest shots in golf is trying to hit to a side of a wide, expansive fw. Especially if you know the farther to the side you hit it, the easier the next shot.

Strategy that relies on that kind of positional choices does not need a lot of bunkers, water, trees, etc. That is, eye-candy stuff is not needed.

As Peter notes, it's a bold architect these days who is comfortable proposing designs without that eye-candy.

Bob

[Michael Blake]

Tom D,

Would your "grey-shaded area" be similar to your "heroic" design definition in ANATOMY?


Tom P,

I agree with your "best of the risk/rewark concept...."  Those holes are the most fun because they not only challenge you to execute a golf shot, but they seduce you with TEMPTATION.  They really test you physically and mentally.  A lethal combination.  But oh so satisfying when successful.

[Bill Brightly]

Tom D

If you look at the Road Hole thread and the drawing posted by George Bahto there is great example of "graduated risk/reward"

Because the green "opens up" from the right side of the fairway, Raynor/Banks tempted you to get close to the bunkers on the right to have best angle in to the green.

Contrarliy, the more you play it safe and avoid the traps, the worse your angle is to the green.

Is this what you mean?

[Mark_F]

There is one type of hole in particular which I think is terribly under-used these days perhaps because "blind" has become a naughty word in golf.  The hole where the well placed drive gains a view of the green and the more timid drive leaves a blind approach.  

You could be describing my home course, Sean.

Interesting, however, that this element is one of the less controversial design decisions, which is good, because everyone is too busy complaining about the other things!

[Steve Wilson]

Would it be fair to say that the preferred (by this forum) risk/reward golf architecture grades on a lenient curve, whereas the penal school is pass/fail with an absurdly high demand for a pass?

[Paul_Turner]

Perhaps an angled green with a good degree of tilt is one of the best ways to get subtle, gradual risk/reward.  No need to have any fairway hazards.

[Phil_the_Author]

The first hole at WFW is an outstanding example of what Tom & Mr. Turner is talking about.

Here is a hole where the further right one lay after the drive the more davantageous he will find himself in when polaying his second into the green.

Shots played from the left-center to far left side of the fairway come into a green with severe back-to-front undulations in a manner that the ball flight is at an angle to the undulation. In other words, unless the ball has tremendous spin to hold &/or stop it, it will bounce right and go into the rough or the greenside bunker. The further left one lay the greater this is.

Shots played from the right-side, and even from the rough (as both Jones & Espinoza purposefully did during the '29 Open) come into the green with a ball flight that is perpendicular to the undulations. The advantage here is that a shot that doesn't have enough spin to hiold &/or stop it, will find itself deadened into the face of the undulations if it strikes there and stop quickly or have plenty of green surface to roll out and stay on if it does not.

[Kalen Braley]

TomPaul,

I think that good architecture exists when there is a variety.  So if variety comes in the form risk/reward holes, penal holes, and grey area holes that Tom speaks of, then at least in my mind this is a good thing.

When I think risk/reward, I would agree that the hole "must" include an option for the feeble/short hitter/risk averse.  Holes that do not provide a viable option for the aformentioned groups really aren't risk/reward at all, they are purely penal if a required carry cannot be made.

I would consider a cape hole or a bite-off-as-much-as-you-can-chew hole a good example of a risk/reward hole.  A more subtle one being #6 at PD.  Play left and its much safer off the tee, but leaves a much tougher approach in.  Play right, challenge the bunker off the tee, but leave a much more doable approach into that green. In my mind though, this is still risk/reward.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,
I agree with your "best of the risk/rewark concept...."  Those holes are the most fun because they not only challenge you to execute a golf shot, but they seduce you with TEMPTATION.  They really test you physically and mentally.  A lethal combination.  But oh so satisfying when successful."

MichaelB:

I think that's true, but to really tempt a golfer in some way, I feel there must be plenty for him to both see and use that isn't tempting because it doesn't necessarily appear to be rewarding (with generally commensurate risk). This is the kind I feel offers the most varied choices strategically. I just think it is always best with the risky and tempting when there is plenty juxtaposed to it that isn't that way.

It is this combination of strategic architectural offerings that interest me the most of all while always recognizing this combination probably shouldn't be everywhere on any golf course.

And I haven't even mentioned on this thread one of the primary reasons I think this kind of thing is so interesting. By that I mean the other application of a risk/reward equation in golf----one that doesn't even immediately have to do with golf architecture specifically.

Of course I'm talking about a golfer's strategies influenced and borne out by what his match play opponent, particularly has done at any particular time (obviously this kind of influence is generally never so great in stroke play, although there are certainly some interesting times when it can be).

I know you know what I mean by this and to me this is just so interesting and something golfers as a whole tend to approach and react to in so many and varied ways.

This is an area of the risk/reward concept in golf that has really interested me and one I probably went about quite differently than most anyone else. At least that was my observation in my career playing golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Doak,
Define short hitter?  Is that a pro who only hits it 270 or an amateur who only hits it 180?  

Richard,
Nice post.  

Does the terminology we use really matter?   The point is that the best golf holes (or should I say the best golf shots) are as much a mental challenge as they are a physical one.  Furthermore, isn't playing for a tightly tucked pin with the chance of short-siding yourself a form of risk/reward.  Isn't taking the break out of a short side hill putt knowing you might have a four or five footer coming back a form of risk/reward.  If we use a broader definition to define a “hazard”, there are all sorts of features that can lead to this scenario for a golf hole/shot.  Furthermore, risk/reward varies dramatically from golfer to golfer.  What is a risk to one can be completely transparent to another.

Bob,
Regarding your comment about Tom D's notion of graduated strategy - What is it that makes that next shot easier?  My guess it is some form of "hazard" that leads to the risk/reward scenario.  Otherwise, who cares where you hit  

[Adam Clayman]

Mark Fine, The examples of Tom's work where he uses the R/R concept are numerous. Flirt with the hazard and ye shall be rewarded. Stray away and the next shot becomes either increasingly blind or less level. Mind you thsoe are just general observations, and, are not meant to imply formulaic or repetitive uses of the concept. Some hazard have major draws that gather anything remotely close. Some Pin position changes the severity of the test, while other features act like backstops and kickplates which allow for creative attack from the sides farther away from the obvious ideal.

Case in point, The 12th at BN. The prudent play is left, as close to the bunker as you dare. Balls hit right likely tumble to the hollow on the right, where everything is blind...




Save for a  back right pin position. When the flag is there, going right is less of penalty because of the back right kick plate. But, once again, the player must flirt with ...

[Mark_Fine]

Adam,
I agree with you.  My point that I was directing at Bob was regarding his comment where he said:

"Strategy that relies on that kind of positional choices does not need a lot of bunkers, water, trees, etc. That is, eye-candy stuff is not needed."

I was saying that positional strategy still requires some form of "hazard" which leads to the risk/reward scenario.  It is not eye-candy assuming we are defining "eye candy" as something superfluous.  

[Kirk Gill]

If there is to be any proportionality in regards to risk vs. reward, then a list of rewards and their relative importance would be necessary. Let's say you are designing a par 4 with water all along the left side, and you want your resulting hole to have a risk/reward component. Since hitting a ball in the water is in many ways the ultimate penalty, what reward can you grant for hitting close to that water that will be tempting, given the harshness of the penalty for missing? A better angle to the green? A flatter lie? An approach that lets you play away from the water?

[Mark Smolens]

Mr. Clayman, couldn't you say that about a large number of holes at Ballyneal?  Tee shots on 1, 7, 8, 10 for example?  Strikes me that Ballyneal is a perfect example of the subtle nature of the risk/reward conundrum facing the architect and his subjects.  You can hit your hit your drive as hard and far to the right on number one as you would like, but you better be careful if you take it down the left side (from the back tee), cause if you don't. . . you're down in the stuff praying for some kind of swing at it to get it back in play.  I've only played 2 rounds there, but I thought it was as much tiring on my brain as it was on my body.

[Michael Dugger]

Seems what I am hearing here is the risk vs reward/strategic school can be set up in two subtle, but different ways.

1. Risk carrying a penalizing hazard and be rewarded with a shorter shot or better angle.

2. Flirt with a hazard to gain a shorter shot or better angle.

Each of them are similar, in my opinion, in that they ask the player to weigh the negatives of said "flirting" with the benefits of how they might best "crack open" the green.

It would seem the degree of the penalty for "flirting too much" or "failing in the carry" is what makes strategic golf thought provoking.....and the penal mind numblingly boring.

[Adam Clayman]

Mark, The differences in player's abilities makes pinpointing all the gratuated R/R examples at Ballyneal difficult. But yes I agree there are alot of these examples at BN. Some are on the tee shot, some are on approach. Some require carries, while others require skirting with the hazards. The unique aspect of BN, besides it's ground contours, is almost a constant ability to recover from whatever predicament any golfer might find themselves.

[Tags:]

Tags: