[Peter Pallotta]

On an old thread an architect wrote:

"What I'm trying to build is a variation of difficulty for recovery play, ranging from easy to tricky to damn-near-impossible.  I see that as a positive -- I see it as allowing players with differing short games to utilize their talents."

I have to admit that I've never looked for or noticed or paid attention to this aspect of golf course design; and when I think about courses I like, this criteria has never been on my radar screen let alone something I've used to judge a course.  And honestly, even now that I'm thinking about it, I can't imagine being able to notice this 'variation of difficulty'.

I'd be happy to hear from folks who DO notice this kind of stuff, and how this 'variation' manifests itself, and how important you think this concept/variation of difficulty is in terms of the overall quality of the design.

Thanks
Peter     

[Mark_F]

Peter,

Excellent question.

I think this concept is very important in terms of the overall quality of design, because it sorts out those who are thinking (and executing) properly from those who aren't.

I'm interested in the architect saying "ranging from easy."  I wonder if they mean there should always be an easy recovery from around most (every?) green, or whether only some holes should have an easy recovery.

To notice this sort of stuff, I think you have to be reallylooking and thinking about the course as much as play it, and you may only really appreciate it when you play a hole or holes several times with different pin positions.

What's really interesting is a hole like 3 at RM West, a photo of which Mark Bourgeois posted on the 350-390 thread. 

If the pin is front right, close to the right hand bunker, is the easy recovery from the left hand bunker or the swale in front?

[Sean_A]

I am not sure why this idea would seem odd.  The best players often allow room for error on the easy side for up and down.  Of course, easy is relative.  I would have thought that in a lot of cases variation of recovery difficulty becomes apparent just in the design of the hole.  I wouldn't think there would be a lot of strategy involved if the recovery options are virtually all the same regardless of where one misses.  An example may be an island green.  I spose the lack of variety in the recovery options is a reason why some do not like the concept.  Additionally, if archies are finding good natural greensites, would the variety of recovery often be one of the reasons the greensite was chosen?  After writing this, I have the feeling I don't understand the question very well.

Ciao

[Scott Witter]

Peter:

This is an excellent re-observation on your part and IMO an even better point of view by the architect, even if it wasn't said by me

To me this thinking is most relevant in modern times with technology and length fighting the preservation of design integrity and the spirit of the game.  We have all beat to death the issue from the tee and those architects who don't worry to much about this aspect give appropriate attention to the short game, where overall, this seems to be the greatest opportunity as an equilizer and the element of great fun and creative interest.

Sure, with the great sites these conditions of fun and interest and even challenge can be met from tee to green.  All the better are the architects who don't have a great natural site, but are able to bring it all together from start to finish.  On a whole, however IMO, shot-making and the short game have proven to be the most vulnerable elements in a players handbook, and the best area for architects to draw inspiration from the past masters for defense, to instill thinking, to 'level' the field and to ensure great fun.  Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to suggest that we disregard play from tee to approach/green, but the thought and challenge of recovery is not only the management directly associated with getting up and down, but it is IMO and should be directly proportional to the decisions made at the tee and in the LZ...it is just unfortunate that more golfers don't learn this until they are 55 years old

"I have to admit that I've never looked for or noticed or paid attention to this aspect of golf course design; and when I think about courses I like, this criteria has never been on my radar screen let alone something I've used to judge a course.  And honestly, even now that I'm thinking about it, I can't imagine being able to notice this 'variation of difficulty'."

Peter, you may not have 'noticed' this aspect, at least not intenionally, but if you play enough different courses or see enough, you can begin to feel it and 'see' it when you become familiar with what you are looking for.   Some designers are more deliberate with their work, or in bringing out these conditions and others allow or make it happen without much notice.  I happen to like the latter moreso, because it lets the consequences unfold through the discovery/experience process, rather than as an immediate response as so many like to have occur.  This goes back to why so many great courses do not show their many faces until repeat play.  So much depends on any given day and moment depending on where your ball ends up.

This 'variation of difficulty' I believe rings true in the best work of the present and of the past.   It does favor a great site at least in the ability to make it happen more naturally and randomly such that it is more refreshing to experience, but through the works of many architects we talk a lot about on this site, I believe they take great care and pains to get it right and ensure these characteristics you speak of are in place to create the situations you speak of.  So obviously, I really appreciate these 'features' and conditions, for without them the game would simply not measure up, or keep me coming back, or inspire me as a designer.

Thanks Peter for bringing this up

[Tom_Doak]

That is where I spend most of my time on-site, thinking about the various shots around the greens.  When that aspect is well thought out, it doesn't matter how the players got to where they are; it only matters whether they've given themselves a chance to hole a putt or get up and down, or put themselves in jail.

To Mark's question, I personally don't think there should be an "easy" place on every hole from which to get up and down -- if there was, the good players would always take the easy way out.  It's better to have a variety there, too, so that players will have something to figure out.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for the replies, gents.

Just after I posted this last night, I thought, "wait a minute - is this a rip-off of Mark B's VORD concept?" If it is, sorry Mark -- the influence was unconscious.   

Sean - it isn't the options on any ONE hole that I was asking about, but how over 18 holes the architect offers a 'balance' and 'range' of recovery options and variations. I tend to think of courses as a whole, i.e. some as generally more forgiving around the greens, and some almost relentlessly challenging/penal. I'd never thought of a course as having variety/range of recovery that way.... but obviously they do. Maybe like Scott says, sensing that comes with more time and play.

Peter     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()