[Phil Benedict]

A pundit on Golf.com described Valhalla as "goofy golf" although he thought it would be ok for match play.  This got me to thinking what constitutes goofy golf.  Is it like pornography?  You know it when you see it?  When does our beloved quirk cross the line and become goofy golf?

Over the weekend I happened to watch a bit of the Nationwide Tour event (I know, get a life Phil).  The commentator said that one par 3 played as dogleg when the pin was on the left side of the green.  I've always thought of dogleg par 3's as an example of goofy golf.  How about a par 3 with a blind green?  There's one at Hunstanton.

The most polarizing course I've ever played is Tobacco Road.  I thought it was ok but several of my playing partners thought it was goofy golf.  I can see their point even if I was more forgiving of TR..

[Bill_McBride]

I don't mind some of the "goofy golf" aspects of Tobacco Road as much as the routing error near the end.  That is plenty goofy enough its own self.

Some of the Pete Dye I've played has seemed goofier to me.  The par 4 with water down the left and the green on the peninsula that's guarded by the big mound (Spion Kop?).  The island green par 3 #17 on at least two Dye courses.  The sharp edges a la Nicklaus at a couple of courses.

That's goofy golf to me.

[Phil Benedict]

Bill,

I think Dye does a lot of goofy stuff with artificial mounding around the greens.  I hated the Mountain Course at La Quinta because you'd have these ridiculous stances around the greens.

[Kenny Baer]

Jim Engh's the Creek Course at Reynolds Plantation is goofy golf to me; without question.

The goofiest of all goofy golf is Wolf Creek GC in Mesquitte, NV.  Borderline unplayable but so unique you catch yourself looking around and say WTF, where am I.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think most better players define goofy golf as shots that contain one or more of the following physical elements:

Blindness (or at least confusion)
Inability to get ANY well struck shots  close to the pin
Inability to hole a well struck putt
Ease of ability to "de-green" a decent approach putt
Absence of a straight shot (i.e., dogleg par 3)
Target areas that are beyond carry or distance limits to reach (or reach in in regulation)
Hole Landing areas that are ridiculously narrow
Hole features that propel shots from the green or fw to rough
Greens that don't hold (sub cat. of above)
In general, lack of reward for well played shots - i.e. greens with so much contour that even hitting it to 5' doesn't make a birdie relatively easy.

Some minimalists would consider the visual elements - i.e. mounds - goofy golf, and they can play goofy with continuous side hill lies around the green.

However, most consider goof golf different from the goofy look!

I agree with all of the above, unless the course provides just limited doses of each, particularly blindness. If a hole is blind, it should still be well marked so there is no confusion.  As for others, its a matter of degrees.  Building some of those features on any course is probably fine, as long as they only show up once every few holes, with the exact ratio probably varying greatly among golfers.

[Bill_McBride]

I think most better players define goofy golf as shots that contain one or more of the following physical elements:

Blindness (or at least confusion)
Inability to get ANY well struck shots  close to the pin
Inability to hole a well struck putt
Ease of ability to "de-green" a decent approach putt
Absence of a straight shot (i.e., dogleg par 3)
Target areas that are beyond carry or distance limits to reach (or reach in in regulation)
Hole Landing areas that are ridiculously narrow
Hole features that propel shots from the green or fw to rough
Greens that don't hold (sub cat. of above)
In general, lack of reward for well played shots - i.e. greens with so much contour that even hitting it to 5' doesn't make a birdie relatively easy.

Some minimalists would consider the visual elements - i.e. mounds - goofy golf, and they can play goofy with continuous side hill lies around the green.

However, most consider goof golf different from the goofy look!

I agree with all of the above, unless the course provides just limited doses of each, particularly blindness. If a hole is blind, it should still be well marked so there is no confusion.  As for others, its a matter of degrees.  Building some of those features on any course is probably fine, as long as they only show up once every few holes, with the exact ratio probably varying greatly among golfers.

Some of your elements of goofiness could be the result of OTT green speeds when combined with contours:

(Inability to get ANY well struck shots  close to the pin
Inability to hole a well struck putt
Ease of ability to "de-green" a decent approach putt)

I really don't like excessive mounding for containment, but sometimes it can help hide cartpaths or maintenance buildings or such.

Blind shots to me are a great argument for a good yardage book ("strokesaver" in the UK) - if it's a public course you might only play once or twice.  On a private course, your playing companions will hopefully head you in the right direction the first time and once you've played it a few times, it's no longer blind.

One of my favorite design elements is the topography where you can play safely but have a bllind shot or play more adventurously in order to gain a view of the target.

[TX Golf]

The 5th at Prestwick as about as Blind of a par three as you could ever come across. I personally don't consider it goofy. What are other's thoughts on this hole??

Robert

[Phil Benedict]

Jeff,

Great answer.

[Greg Murphy]

I submit holes that requires a short shot followed by a longer shot are goofy, e.g., driver/wedge is ok but wedge/driver is goofy. I know of a course that finishes with a par 5 that is 7 iron off the tee, 3 wood forced carry over a water hazard, then sand wedge into the green. Goofy.

[Steve_Lovett]

Holes 9, 13, 16 at Tobacco Road are goofy golf.  So are the 7th and 17th green.  Great fun - but all over-the-top goofy.  There's a place for it - but not everywhere.

I agree that the routing of Tobacco Road is problematic from 15 on...

[Sean_A]

Goofy golf is stuff like

trees in fairways
trees in/near bunkers
narrow driving shutes
sea of sand fairways
excessive water on courses - especially ponds
greens too quick (imo over 9.5ish)
fairways too narrow to take into account slopes in dry conditions
heavy rough

Ciao

[Bruce Leland]

Standing on the tee of a hole where you envision the shot that the architect intended you to play (ex. a draw on a right to left dogleg hole) you pull the shot off perfectly and it ends up in a hazard due to fairway contours that you can't see from the tee.  Osprey Ridge in Orlando FL has at least two hole like that.

p.s. I forgot to mention that this seems to occur mostly on resort courses where it pisses you off since you probably will never play the hole again.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I wonder if anyone would join David Wood (author- "Around The World In 80 Rounds") in his assessment of the Road Hole as 'goofy golf'  

I guess it takes all kinds. 

p.s. is anyone positve that he's from this planet?

[Phil Benedict]

Jim Kennedy,

The 9th at Hotchkiss has its critics.  Do you think its quirky, goofy or that people just like to whine?

[Garland Bayley]

Cardinal Golf Club 18 hole expansion.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Inability to hole a well struck putt
...

Why? Did the windmill blade get in the way?

[Adam Clayman]

Some minimalists would consider the visual elements - i.e. mounds - goofy golf, and they can play goofy with continuous side hill lies around the green.

Jeff, Could you explain that any further? I'm not following.

All these rules scream to broken in the right situations. But, I suppose the good golfer knows what's best.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The 9th at Hotchkiss has its critics.  Do you think its quirky, goofy or that people just like to whine?

Phil,
Maybe I should have included a few in my initial post.
Can I choose my own answer or must I select one from your list? 

[Dean Stokes]

Goofy golf to me has very little to do with the course design/architecture. It has more to do with course set up.

Best example I can think of is the annual club men's championship or the member/guest.

Three days before the event, the Super turns off the water on the greens (step 1). He/she then ignores the weather channels call for 30 mph winds for the next week. The greens are now double cut and double rolled for the next two days (step 2). The HP or Super sets the pins on side slopes, three feet from the edge of every green as close to water hazards as possible (step 3). The final step involves setting the tee markers one step from the back of the back tee boxes

This is the perfect formula for six hour rounds and goofy golf. Seen it more than once.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Great answer.

Phil, I think about this stuff a bit, ya know!

Bill McBride,

I agree with optional blindness being a good thing.  I the hit where you see it or hit it where you don't "outdriving your headlights."

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have had one employee and one client - both good players - comment that Redans are goofy. Basically, they want to be rewarded for their ability to fire a long iron at the pin and don't see why a gca would give other players another (creative) option to bounce one in off a slope.......to them it just makes golf too easy......

[Jim_Kennedy]

Phil,
I was trying to come up with an answer to your question about our ninth hole and I thought I'd use Jeff's criteria as a starting point (so I don't sound like such a homer) 

Blindness (or at least confusion)- We don't have blindness, but there are a few choices to be made on every shot, this might confuse some.
 
Inability to get ANY well struck shots  close to the pin- Not the case, although you do need to hit well struck shots, from start to finish, to meet the demands.

Inability to hole a well struck putt- One half of the green has more slope than the other, and it can be a moderately hard two-putt from the wrong side, but a well struck putt will find the bottom and won't run madly away.  

Ease of ability to "de-green" a decent approach putt- Not easy to do. There is only one location (front left) where you might, and only if you make a really bad putt.

Absence of a straight shot (i.e., dogleg par 3)- Doesn't pertain

Target areas that are beyond carry or distance limits to reach (or reach in in regulation)- Nope

Hole Landing areas that are ridiculously narrow- Could possibly be seen that way, but in reality it looks more narrow than it is.

Hole features that propel shots from the green or fw to rough- That can happen on the second shot if you aren't careful (shot kicked from fwy to rough)   

Greens that don't hold (sub cat. of above)- Nope

In general, lack of reward for well played shots - i.e. greens with so much contour that even hitting it to 5' doesn't make a birdie relatively easy.-Nope


My assessment: our ninth(which uses the Road Hole concept) might be seen by some players as quirky, but I don't believe they'd see it as goofy. This is not to say that I haven't heard players say it's goofy, but they've usually just made a ten.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Some minimalists would consider the visual elements - i.e. mounds - goofy golf, and they can play goofy with continuous side hill lies around the green.

Jeff, Could you explain that any further? I'm not following.

All these rules scream to broken in the right situations. But, I suppose the good golfer knows what's best.

Adam,

Since its a two part comment with one question, I am not sure which you don't understand.

As to minimalists and mounds, I would think they consider almost any artificial earthmoving to look goofy and not be acceptable simply for the look of the course.  Then, I commented on the playing aspects of mounds around greens.  I have toned mine way down from the 90's, based on golfers comments that they get tired of playing down/side hill lies around the greens, chipping over mounds (no run up options there!) etc.

I have written about good golfers opinions driving design before, and it can be a negative, but generally the ideas hold. I agreed that breaking all of those rules on a limited basis on almost every design is probably a good thing, if done in moderation.  It is the job of the gca to know when and how often to break those rules to create a good and popular course.  And of course, there is some variations as to opinion of what a reasonable amount of rule breaking is!

One thing I don't like about good players critiques is that they often center on the "What if I hit it HERE?  I would have NO SHOT, NO SHOT AT ALL!"  IMHO, you can't have strategy without punishing some miss more than others on any given hole.  And, practically, you can always find a spot - like right against a bunker lip - that just doesn't allow a play.  Of course, for some reason, no one ever asks "What if I hit it HERE?" if they hit in water. But if they find dry land, they think they deserve a shot as described in my initial post.

I hope that answers your questions. If not, I will have another go at it!

[Adam Clayman]

Thank you Jeff, It does answer what you were trying to convey about mounds around greens.

I would disagree with your general perceptions on what "Minimalists" think. Mostly because of the term used to describe the people I think you are trying to box into a category. In regards to mounds around greens, for me, it all depends on How it's done. We could probably use your work at Pioneer as a great discussion topic since the course is bunkerless.

When you cite what better players say about "no shot" that does not ring true to the core golfer who is a creative shot maker, and/or a real sportsman who salivates when challenged with what others would call "no shot". The 'no shot' issue is much more a function of the turf conditions (maintenance meld) from that 'no shot' position, than what the golf course presents architecturally.

 I don''t consider myself a minimalist but rather someone who appreciates both the natural look and the angular. That may seem like a dichotomy, but, because I appreciate the work gca's do as an art form, my polarity appreciates when either are well done.

The majority of commercial designs that have green side mounds are only hideous because they are built without regard to placement, size, and shape. Also their uniformity is a major factor in the negative aesthetic. #18 at Harborside, Port, is a great example.
 

[Phil Benedict]

Jim,

I didn't mean to pick on your 9th but I thought it was an interesting example of a hole that can polarize opinions.  What I found difficult about the hole (and I haven't played it in years) is that it was hard to visualize the target landing area for your drive from a severely elevated tee.  Small landing areas are harder to hit from an elevated tee.  The landing area for the second shot, assuming a layup, is pretty tight and challenging particularly given the slope of the fairway.  The weeping willows along the left of the layup area were a nuisance.  Are they still there?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()