Which scenario do you prefer?

[George Pazin]

Scenario 1 - You step up to the tee. The fairway is clearly defined by rough, with the hole curving gently to the right. There's a bunker on the inside corner of the dogleg, and thanks to the elevated tee, you can see fairway safely beyond the bunker, which you know you can carry with a solid shot. You set up for a power fade - and hit it perfectly. The ball flies well past the bunker, falls gently to the right and settles in the middle of the fairway.

Scenario 2 - You walk over to the tee. A wide field lies in front of you, mowed mostly all to fairway height. You see a flag in the distance, but it's not at all clear what's the best way to get there. You've played the hole many times before, with mixed results from each side of the fairway: the green seems to favor an approach from the left, but there's a pot bunker, invisible from the non-elevated tee. You are a little uncertain as you decide to play left. When you hit the shot, it comes off perfectly as you envisioned, but as it bounds down the fairway, you're still hoping it doesn't bounce into that bunker lurking out there somewhere.

-----

If you've read any of my posts, you know which I prefer. You might even be able to tell from the wording above, though I tried to be neutral.

So which scenario do you prefer on the tee box? And which result do you prefer the feeling of, walking off the tee box?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Scenario 1 on the first hole....
Scenario 2 on the second hole...

Other scenarios on succeeding holes.

[Jim Nugent]

George, let me ask you another question.  Which one is Oakmont?

[JESII]

George,

Did you post this same quiz in some other universe...one which does not require a love of blindness and randomness to participate...so you could compare the polling results?

[John Kavanaugh]

George,

Did you post this same quiz in some other universe...one which does not require a love of blindness and randomness to participate...so you could compare the polling results?

George,

In scenerio 1 how far out is that bunker you can carry?

[John Moore II]

George--In your example, they are both nearly the same, as the player in Scenario 1 may be new to the course while the player in 2 has certainly seen the course many times. In that way, the bunker is not blind anymore. Someone once said that blind shots are only blind the first time you play them. I like the idea of conditions on the second one, but other than that, they are the same hole, for those that have played it anyway.

[John Kavanaugh]

In scenerio 2 how stupid are you?  The green only seems to favor an appoach from the left and you still hit towards a blind pot bunker that costs you a full stroke.

[Peter Pallotta]

George -

I'd put it this way, and in the form of a question:

Can a golf course serve as a refuge from the all-pervasive definitions and directions and signifiers of modern-day life? And if so, can it still retain its utility as a field of play?

I've probably asked that same question in one way or another a thousand times here. That's because I think the answer is what will most shape the experience, the cost, the maintenance regimes, and the viability of the game itself in the years to come.

As someone who's whole life has been downtown living, I'm more than used to seeing the stop signs and one way streets and billboards of over-wrought messaging that guide our ways. And, while I think I'd enjoy meeting the architects here over a few drinks, I don't necessarily want to meet them on their golf courses.

Peter  

[Garland Bayley]

[JESII]

Can a golf course serve as a refuge from the all-pervasive definitions and directions and signifiers of modern-day life? And if so, can it still retain its utility as a field of play?

Sure it can, but you have to realize Peter, that you are in the minority as far as people seeking that refuge ON the golf course...and that fact has driven, and will continue to drive, the experience and cost of the game...

[JESII]

Peter,

What would you pay for that experience?

[Michael Moore]

George -

My absolute favorite moment in golf is walking to a crushed tee shot that you know for sure is way down in the middle of the fairway because you saw it land it there.

Surely it's wonderful to come around the corner or to the crest of the hill and see your tee shot bisecting the fairway, the Melvillian "whiteness of the ball" positively aglow against an ocean of green.

But the walk is a little bit more enjoyable when all doubt has been removed.

[George Pazin]

Well, at least Jeff answered! And a good one, at that.



JK -

The bunker in scenario #1 is just at the edge of your own personal carry distance. It took a perfect shot, and you did it.

As for your second question, just stupid enough.



J Moore -

Interesting response, I gotta think about it while I'm heading off to carpool pickup.



Jim Nugent -

Most would say Oakmont is like #1, but I could argue either - which is why my high school English teacher thought I was destined for a career in law.

[Peter Pallotta]

JES -

thanks. That you think the answer is "sure it can" is important, i.e. it tells me that at least one competitive player can imagine a course retaining its utility as a shot-tester while not necessarily retaining the forms by which that utility has traditionally been expressed. (If I've understood you correctly.)

And once you open that door, the possibilities for new ways to embrace and use the natural features of a site open up, as do imaginative new substitutes for traditional devices such as sand bunkering (including the idea that no substitute is required at all).  

All of which might mean that construction techniques and maintenance regimes are simplified and made less costly, and that over time a whole new range of (previously overlooked) natural sites become valued for what they can uniquely offer as potential fields of play.

If I'm in the minority, I don't think I'd remain in the minority for very long. That is, I don't think our golfing wants are so fixed and immutable that if new alternatives were offered we wouldn't at least try them.  If interesting and low cost and more natural-looking and feeling golf courses where being built that still retained their utility as game-testing venues, I think the general golfing public would happily folllow along.      

What would I pay for this? Well, currently I pay anywhere from about 65 dollars a round at good municipal courses, about 80-100 dollars a round for tier-two daily fee courses, and about 125 dollars for what are considered high-end and quality daily fees. I'd certainly pay in that range for my golfing refuge, but I'd imagine that the bonus would be that I'd be paying less.

Peter

[A.G._Crockett]

Scenario 1 on the first hole....
Scenario 2 on the second hole...

Other scenarios on succeeding holes.

This is perfect, including the order of the first two holes of the course.  

Exercise over.

[JESII]

Scenario 1 on the first hole....
Scenario 2 on the second hole...

Other scenarios on succeeding holes.

This is perfect, including the order of the first two holes of the course.  

Exercise over.

I think I disagree...

[J Sadowsky]

Scenario 1 - You step up to the tee. The fairway is clearly defined by rough, with the hole curving gently to the right. There's a bunker on the inside corner of the dogleg, and thanks to the elevated tee, you can see fairway safely beyond the bunker, which you know you can carry with a solid shot. You set up for a power fade - and hit it perfectly. The ball flies well past the bunker, falls gently to the right and settles in the middle of the fairway.

Scenario 2 - You walk over to the tee. A wide field lies in front of you, mowed mostly all to fairway height. You see a flag in the distance, but it's not at all clear what's the best way to get there. You've played the hole many times before, with mixed results from each side of the fairway: the green seems to favor an approach from the left, but there's a pot bunker, invisible from the non-elevated tee. You are a little uncertain as you decide to play left. When you hit the shot, it comes off perfectly as you envisioned, but as it bounds down the fairway, you're still hoping it doesn't bounce into that bunker lurking out there somewhere.

-----

If you've read any of my posts, you know which I prefer. You might even be able to tell from the wording above, though I tried to be neutral.

So which scenario do you prefer on the tee box? And which result do you prefer the feeling of, walking off the tee box?

Scenario 1 on a daily fee or resort club.  Scenario 2 at my own club.

Why?  I think if you're going to play a golf course 20+ times a year, there should be more to it than simple repetition-execution.

Heck, JK asks why anyone would take one route to the hole when another route would do.  I've never been a member at a private club, but I imagine I'd choose the other route at times just for fun.  I guess I'm not competitive enough

PS - if a course is designed to be played by people only a few times in their life (resort or low-membership CCFADs), I'm generally against "blind" hazards or "false fronts" (unless you are expected to have a caddy who knows about them with you).  Nothing is more irritating than hitting a precise and perfect shot, and then getting a bad result, not by poor strategy or bad luck, but the existence of conditions you could not possibly have predicted.  

[George Pazin]

Scenario 1 on the first hole....
Scenario 2 on the second hole...

Other scenarios on succeeding holes.

This is perfect, including the order of the first two holes of the course.  

Exercise over.

I think I disagree...

I know I do. For one thing, your statement and Jeff's imply that TOC would be better if someone threw in a few Medinah type holes.

JK -

It's interesting to me that you dismiss the notion of challenging a hazard to gain favorable angle of approach. By using the word seems, I meant that the favorable angle would be gained at the risk of ending up in a hazard. That's pretty basic strategy, long favored by many many architects, writers and golfers.

-----

The reason for the question was to determine if posters would prefer to be dictated a shot, and then hit that shot, versus being asked to figure out the best strategy to minimize one's score. It's also an experiment along the lines of why many golfers prefer obvious strategy versus subtle strategy.

[JESII]

Scenario 1 on the first hole....
Scenario 2 on the second hole...

Other scenarios on succeeding holes.

This is perfect, including the order of the first two holes of the course.  

Exercise over.

I think I disagree...

I know I do. For one thing, your statement and Jeff's imply that TOC would be better if someone threw in a few Medinah type holes.

Thanks for the reminder George...I intended to get back to this thread and your appropriate, concise sentence right there pinpointed my views...

While some on here might not love Medinah, do they think it would be better if two or three holes looked like those at TOC?

[Jeff_Brauer]

George,

Your use of the word scenario led my brain to the idea of a new course design.  And yes, there, a few (but not all) Medinah tee shots would be on my radar screen as my "ideal" concept would feature variety over dogmatic following of width or narrowness.

I certainly wouldn't change St. Andrews.  I mean, its worked for about 500 years and I don't think that state of affairs is going to change signifigantly in the next few......

[cary lichtenstein]

 

[Ian Andrew]

George,

I would choose Scenario 2

It has width, little rough, requires exploration,
gives me the playing freedom to try different things each time out, the bunker is only "blind" once and because I hate a hole with a clear task.

[Norbert P]

. . . the walk is a little bit more enjoyable when all doubt has been removed.

Michael! You're from the state that brought us Steven King?!
Have you no appreciation for suspense? For deferred gratification? For discovery of fate?  

George, it sounds like you've come across the quandary of the dogleg(?) hole in Links Magazine design contest.  

Here's my unqualified answer . . .

if it's my first time playing, I really like the 2nd scenerio. But, if it's my 73rdteenth time playing, I especially like the 2nd scenerio.

[George Pazin]

While some on here might not love Medinah, do they think it would be better if two or three holes looked like those at TOC?

An example so much better I'm po'd I didn't think of it myself!

[Peter Pallotta]

And plus, generally speaking do you often see courses that have a mix like that? Do many courses blend design philosophies that way? Isn't the choice, in practice, actually between the "Medinah' experience and 'The Old Course' experience? And, since no one's ever tried to emulate TOC, isn't the 'choice' actually just the 'Medinah' experience, but in endless minor permutations?

Peter