[Bill Brightly]

Michael,


I agree with you, I  like the idea of flirting wih hazards to gain a better angle and/or shorter shot to the hole.

I was really surprised at Tom D lashing out at the term, as if he takes "risk/reward" to mean penal.  That threw me, I LOVE risk/reward holes, but not penal...Maybe he can define the term better?

[JESII]

Michael D,

How is #1 in your post there not the identical definition someone might write about "penal architecture"?


How is "strategic" not just one end of the continuum on which "penal" is the other end?

Just different degrees on the same theme...a theme that likely is more exciting the closer to the "penal" end you get...not necessarily better, just more exciting...

[Garland Bayley]

Michael,

Didn't Tom D take hazard completely out of the discussion for many strategic holes.

Why does a hole have to have a noticeable hazard of any form to be strategic?
Are strategic holes without noticeable hazards of any form appropriately called risk/reward?

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Please list what you would call good strategic holes without any noticable hazards?
Mark

[Michael Dugger]

Michael D,

How is #1 in your post there not the identical definition someone might write about "penal architecture"?


How is "strategic" not just one end of the continuum on which "penal" is the other end?

Just different degrees on the same theme...a theme that likely is more exciting the closer to the "penal" end you get...not necessarily better, just more exciting...

In my mind, bona fide penal architecture never truly "rewards."

If there is no advantage to be had by "flirting" with a hazard, or if there is no advantage to hitting your tee shot to the right side of the fairway, or the left side of the fairway, I don't think you can call the hole, or the placements of the hazards "strategic."

I like to think about it like this.  To my eye you are asked to "tackle" or "strategize" a hole in fundamentally different ways if you posit a hole with bunkers lining both sides of the fairway versus one where you have one bunker directly in the middle of the fairway.

One type asks the golfer to consider one and one possibility only.  Miss the bunkers or else.

The other asks the golfer to consider numerous possibilities.  Blast it over the bunker, lay up short, go right, go left.  Add to this greenside bunkers which clearly dictate what angle is preferable in an approach shot and you have the makings of a strategic hole.  

I also think strategy can be integrated into a golf hole without sand or water hazards.  As Tom Doak has mentioned a million and one times, short golf grass and undulations around greens seem to be most vexing to many golfers.

my two bits.....    

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Risk reward is such a relative term..risk /reward for whom?

What may be a risk reward hole for Tiger Wodds and myself are two totally different animals.
He hits the ball further and as such will judge risk reward on a different scale.
Many so called risk reward holes really are not..and play as good shortish par fours/fives.
Lines taken into greens that are sometimes termed risk reward would probably be better described as simply conservative versus brave..or green light versus red light depending on circunstances during a round of golf and ones shotmaking ability.

How on earth an architect is able to make a hole risk reward for everybody is beyond me.
Take the first at Pebble Beach for example...to some is that a risk reward hole because you can hit driver and cut the corner?
Or number 18 for me...not a risk reward hole at all because I cannot get there in two anyway...so wheres the risk or the reward.
It truly is a relative term based on ablility...surely?

[Mark_Fine]

Michael,
You said,

“In my mind, bona fide penal architecture never truly "rewards."  

Is #17 at the TPC of Sawgrass “penal architecture”?  Are you rewarded if you successfully carry the hazard and end up dry on the putting surface?  

Tom Doak is not the only one who has talked about forms of “hazards” other than those defined by the USGA rules book.  Short grass and undulations are just a few of many that can be used to introduce that element of risk/reward that makes golf holes fun and interesting to play.  

I asked this question in the past, but can someone name a great golf hole that does not introduce an element of risk/reward in some manner?  I can't name one.  

Remember, penal architecture is basically risk/reward with no options.  Strategic architecture encompasses penal architecture but ususally implies other avenues are available to circumvent the trouble.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
Please list what you would call good strategic holes without any noticable hazards?
Mark

Let me describe one to you. Long uphill par 5 bending to the right. In the area  where most drives finish after having selected appropriate tees, the fairway is fairly flat on the left, but slopes gradually more down to the right on the right side. Strategic placement on the left gives the reward of an easier second to get in position for the approach without having to play a long shot with the ball below your feet. (I learned this during a scramble. No one wanted to play my longer drive down the right from where I usually hit a long draw turning right to gain proper position for the approach. Those no ones were all righties of course. ) As you continue on towards the green, the left downto right slope increases, and the green also has a left downto right slope. Therefore, strategically it is better to be in the right rough for the approach for almost all pin placements, except for those on the extreme right. Almost any shot from the left will run off the right edge of the green.

Narry a bunker on the hole, but it rewards the positional play TD mentioned.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
It's a little hard to picture the hole but I'll take your word for it in that it is a good strategic hole that one would not notice any hazards.  Let me ask you this, do you notice anything different about the hole after you've played it once or twice?  What is it about the hole that makes it thought provoking?  Is there any trouble if you hit a poor shot?    

[Garland Bayley]

Mark,

Yes, I notice different things, especially about the green and different pin positions and their attack. The thing that is most thought provoking to me is positioning the second. Given the cant of the fairway you have to fight instinct to hit it up the left side, which would seem to be both the safe and proper thing to do. Even if the ball drifts back to the center, it is still very difficult to get the approach in a good position.
On the approach, hit it too far right and you go over the bank down the hill and have a blind recovery pitch back to the green. Hit it too far left, and it stays in the level area of short grass left of the green. Good luck getting any putt, chip, pitch to stop near the hole with the green running away from you. Since it is a long hole for 99% of the golfers, poor shots are penalized simply by lack of progress.

[Mark_Fine]

Garland,
Maybe we are agreeing and don't realize it.  You have to understand, I'm not hung up on hazards being only defined as sand and water.  If you read my book that Forrest and I wrote, you'd know where I am coming from    
Great strategic holes always have some kind of feature (call them what you want) that make the golf hole interesting and challenging.  You listed some of those features in your last post, e.g. the feature that makes it difficult to get your approach shot in the right position, the bank that makes the ball go down the hill leaving a blind recovery, the green running away from the angle of approach,...and so on.  These are all forms of hazards.  If you think I am going to extremes, what do you call Out of Bounds.  To me that is a form of a hazard and something you should avoid but it is not a hazard according to the USGA    Our term is "informal hazard".  

[Garland Bayley]

... Our term is "informal hazard".  

And, I called it noticeable hazard and you took exception. Actually, I think the average golfer only notices the steep bank to the right of the green and probably only thinks it was necessary to allow the green to be level enough to be playable on the hillside. To them it is not an informal hazard, because they only think of it as a necessity.

[JMorgan]

A few quid on greyscale:

Risk/reward applies more to inland courses where little natural character or topographic quirk has been preserved.  Seaside links provide more difficult stances and lies in addition to bunkers and hazards of ordinary description, and do not give the player too much of the best of everything for a good shot.

"A narrow plateau for a green, or a few hummocks in front of one, will very likely cause just as much trouble and amusement to a player as a gaping chasm stretching right across the course."

"Players are beginning to see how easy it is to place bunkers at correct distances, but few perhaps realize how difficult it is to arrange for the natural features to provide to the fullest possible extent the necessary excitement for the course, and to supplement these features without destroying the natural beauty of the site."

[TEPaul]

Looking back at the initial post on this thread I realize I didn't explain and didn't ask about another part of what I consider to be the concept of "risk/reward" in golf. I intended to ask but apparently I didn't. Maybe it's just too hard to explain. Maybe it's not even worth explaining or considering. Maybe for some it doesn't even exist for some reason.

What I'm talking about is the "risk/reward" equations that pertain to the competitive context or nexus between golfers, not necessarily just the arrangements of architecture and its supposed architectural strategies or hazards features etc for any golfer to consider in a vacuum.

Since strokes are the underlying currency of all golf the risk/reward concept has to pertain to strokes in a much larger context than just architectural arrangements, particularly in single shot increments.

What about what your opponent is doing? Isn't that part of the "risk/reward" concept?

What about your expectation of what to do and what to shoot in stroke play? Isn't that also part of the "risk/reward" concept? This latter idea (stroke play) is obviously far less obvious and sort of falls into the category of "course management" or a whole round "game plan."

To me all of this involves the "risk/reward" concept too.

To the extent that golfers are forgetting these things or not understanding them could be the extent to which golf or even architecture is beginning to fall short of some ideal somehow.

Does this make any sense?

Probably not.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()