Name that architecture style described by Tom Doak

[Joe Bausch]

So which do you want to name, the risk/reward (which is still open for a real name, perhaps it's heroic) or the more strategic version I was speaking of?

I would like both if you could.  

[paul cowley]

....risk/reward for what player?....does any hole provide an equal measure for all?

While TomD might cringe, this hole thing just gives me a headache.


I prefer to envision TomP's suggestion of how risk/reward relates to a play condition one encounters during match play.

[Tom_Doak]

I agree with Paul ... it's a situation for the moment.

To some degree every hole is a "risk/reward" hole, just as nearly any hole is "a good driving hole".  So it's pretty much meaningless to say so.

[TEPaul]

"I think Behr had the term but I forget what it was...TEP?"

Sully:

Yes, I believe he did. I think he referred to it as "FREEDOM".  

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe one of the reasons the term "risk/reward" is used is because people can relate to it in some manner.   It may also come down to how it is explained.  I like to walk around golf courses with committees and ask people to describe what the different features on each hole contribute to making that hole more interesting, more thought provoking, more exciting/challenging to play.  Sometimes this can be a very eye opening experience.  It can help people to see their golf course in a different light and get the buyin needed to make improvements and/or restore features that have been lost or changed over the years.  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Probably the #1 reason why the whole "risk/reward" concept is all over the place in the minds of many golfers is because most golfers just can't "read" golf architecture, if you know what I mean. I probably shouldn't say they can't read it at all just not very well. In other words, I don't think they know how to help themselves very well in that vein.

I started to realize this when I wrote that GMGC "design evolution" report over ten years ago. There was some strategic explanations in it and I had a whole bunch of members come up to me and tell me they were playing the course so much better without even hitting the ball better and they were definitely having more fun at it. And this was from some members who'd been playing the course for decades.

Perhaps because of this our relatively new head professional has said our membership has a pretty high "golf IQ" or "golf architecture IQ".

Interesting.

[Brad Tufts]

I think one of the best things about Tom's courses is that they are strategic, as designed, with multiple choices (right, left, short, long, lay-up, go for broke, etc.).

So many modern courses present options that qualify their challenges as "strategic."  However, many of these strategies have only two results:

1.  Lay up, do not challenge the hazard.  You are going to be left with a more difficult shot to execute.

2.  Hit over the trouble, open the angle, leaving a straightforward approach.

This is Strategic Design 101.

What sets Tom's courses apart, and I think this speaks to the "subtle gray-shaded" area he is talking about, is that his strategic design principles do not always present (or solely present) basic Strategic Design 101.  The basic tenets are there, but they have been built upon.  

Perhaps call the corollary "Strategic Design 201":

1.  Lay-up short or away from the trouble.  The shot is on the surface a more difficult one (and likely will be 80-90% of the time), but the player may be able to be on a certain half of the fairway or in a small, quirky spot where there is a clean look to the green.  This spot may be tough to get to, or maybe a lucky result, but it gives the shorter or weaker player hope, and increases the fun quotient for those who elect to play safe.

2.  Challenge or carry the hazard.  There is a clean look to the green from the resulting position, but the green is undulating, or crowned, or small.  Certain pin locations might be hidden behind a mound or slope making only a crisp and controlled wedge or short iron the shot of choice.

So, the strategies are no longer only two-pronged, they now branch out like a family tree.  As a low-handicap player, I find Tom and Renaissance's designs very difficult compared to the average course because I can never let my guard down.
I thought about the above points in terms of a short par 4, such as #6 or #16 at Pacific Dunes, but I think it applies to all lengths of holes.

This best describes Tom's "gray-shaded area," for me, that each shot and strategy should not be a foregone conclusion, which may be (so far) Tom's greatest contribution to the art form.

[Garland Bayley]

Mostly I just hate the phrase "risk/reward".  It's not a word, it's two words with a slash in between.  I don't even know what to call that.

I was trying to describe the alternative view of things -- the subtle more gray-shaded view.  So which do you want to name, the risk/reward (which is still open for a real name, perhaps it's heroic) or the more strategic version I was speaking of?

I was going for the more strategic version that you were speaking of.
A new name for risk/reward is another thread. Anyone want to do it?

[Lloyd_Cole]

How about Risk...Reward?
Seriously, I have no problem with this phrase, or whatever it is. I don't think it implies a cape hole every time. Aren't half of the inward holes at The Old Course risk/reward with the tiger line being close to OB on the right? Isn't that the case with the tee shots at Harbour Town, the closer to the bunkers, the better line in? Isn't that the case with the (old) first at Hoylake - there is plenty of room to the left? The 6th at Carnosutie where we love to remember Hogan's fearless drives? It doesn't need to be black and white - there can be more or less risk or more or less reward depending upon how close one dares to aim relative to 'Postion A'  as one sees it (obviously Postion A will be different for different players and will change from day to day).

[Jerry Kluger]

I think the point is an aggressive line of play versus a cautious line of play.  Where the problem of risk/reward comes in concerns the hole where only the very longest hitters can play the risky shot.  A diagonal tee shot across a hazard allows for a more aggressive line of play or a more cautious one and this challenge would be available to every player.  On the other hand, at the extreme, a par 5 hole with an island green is a risk/reward for about 1% of the players, and that is a waste of time.

[Bill Brightly]

I got it!


Strategery

[Adam Clayman]

Intelligent Design

The thoughtful arrangement of parts.

[Tags:]

Tags: