[Bart Bradley]

On the recent thread about trees, the point was made that it is not legitimate to design golf holes that demand a golfer curve his ball in different directions.   Is this notion correct?  Why or why not?

Bart

[Adam Clayman]

Bart, From what I've read on this site, the term legitimate is either too vague or mis-leading.
 I believe Tilly designed with shot shapes in mind. Are his design legit? I'd say so. Now, is demanding or dictating the ultimate in GCA design? I'd say no. The best I know of leave that up to the golfer. A form of freedom where the medium offers an elasticity not found on many courses. Ergo, the best.

[Matt Varney]

Bart,

I think shot shpae is very important to scoring and it very much should be an archiectural feature that uses contours during shaping.  Golfers in general just want to hit the ball straight at their target.  This sounds simple enough but, we all have golf buddies one that fades it, one that draws it and one that hits it down the middle.

When you are playing a round with friends and you step up on a dog leg left par 4 and you hit a fade tee ball your thinking I really need to learn how to hit a slinging draw tee ball for holes just like this one.  Trees create hazards that require you to work a tee ball or control your approach shots into well protected greens.

My personal feeling about shot shaping is that the best course designs require all the shots in your bag even the ones you don't hit well.  This type of course is a complete test of your skills and its not just shot shape its also bunkering and areas around the greens that test your short game from the bump and run to the flop shot.

[Charlie Goerges]

I'll agree that Legitimate is somewhat vague, but I do think the idea of forcing a player to execute a certain shot is a bad idea. That said, a dogleg hole whether lined with trees or sand or rough does not necessarily force that shot shape on a player. Generally one has the option to lay back and leave a longer second shot in exchange for not needing to hit a fade or draw. As an example, the 13th at Augusta is lined with trees, with landforms helping move the ball from right to left, but you would still need to hit a sweeping draw (for a righty) in order to get down to the best lie, angle, and shortest distance for the second shot. However, someone who can only hit a fade has at least one good alternative: play the hole as a 3-shotter.

I also wonder why a "requirement" of a certain shot shape is any different than a requirement of a certain carry distance over a bunker or water hazard?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Suggesting or giving advantage to a certain shot shape is perfectly legit.  Forcing golfers to use only one shape may not be. In the trees example, a forced fade to the prime position is fine, IMHO.  Just leave the fw wide enough that there is some way to hit it with a straight shot or even a draw, even if at a tremendous disadvantage of distance or angle.

[Matt_Ward]

Bart:

Shot control -- the acquired skill in being able to vary the height of a given shot and the wherewithal to move the ball both ways (left or right) is part and parcel in what a design should do in order to provide differentiation between the players.

Too much of design today is moving towards the fast food model. Basic stuff -- but nothing that's thought provoking and which captures someone's imagination.

I always enjoy designs that call for the movement of the ball to get to the most optimum location. No doubt what Jeff B has said is also true -- there should be areas where the less than optimum shot can be played but from which there will be an even greater demand with the shot that follows.

As others have mentioned -- so much of design has moved to fairly predictable type oe holes. Too often power alone is the singular force -- that's why architects need to examine the greater courses of the past and see how shotmaking -- the acquired art of having control of the ball -- is becoming less and less so.

When I look at a layout like Winged Foot / West many people simply think it's a demanding course with little real sophistication. Quite the contrary. Tillinghast created a course where power is indeed a par of the equation -- as it should be -- but he also provided for fairway turning points where it in the player's best interests to shape shots just enough to get to the best location for the following shot.

Although this focus is on shot shaping off the tee -- the same premise holds true for shots into greens. Architects should also not be so enamored with being completely fair to such a degree that utter blandness takes hold. I see no issue with a given hole saying, "If you want the reward, here's what you will need to do." If you don't have such a shot in your bag theres a very simple answer -- practice it for future type situations.

[Ken Moum]

I stand by my answer in the other thread, I don't think it's "reasonable" ask this of any this of but the very best golfers in world. More than a few PGA Tour pros really only curve it one way. For holes that curve the "wrong" way they basically try to hit it straight.

My objection is mostly with older courses where the trees were planted without adequate consideration for how big the crowns will be 30 years later.

You end up with holes like those a local course where you have to hit a ball that goes virtually straight for 100 yards, then curves 10 yards. If you fail, your next shot is going to either be a punch seven iron to get in position for your next shot, or a sideways chp-out, followed by a layup.

As was said here, if the hole DEMANDS a shot shape, I think it a crummy hole. If it REWARDS a certain shot shape while allowing others to play the hole, I am less critical.

The simple fact is that it's no fun playing out of the trees all day, and most of us simply aren't good enough to play courses like the ones that demand a shot shape.

Ken

[Ed Oden]

Most responses (and I believe the other thread that spawned this one) seem to be addressing the effect of trees on the need to shape shots.  Are your thoughts any different if the required shot shape is the result of a severely canted fairway rather than trees?  There are some very good courses (particularly those with the firm and fast conditions generally advocated on this site) where there is virtually no way to keep your ball in the fairway without working it against the slope.  Is that situation any different?

Ed

[Bill_McBride]

"Encouraging" might be a better word than "demanding," and "desirable" might be better than "legitimate."

I have always love the Donald Ross design tendency where he asks the player to hit a draw off the tee and a fade into the green.  You can do something else but the best results are not as easy to obtain.

Given that balls and clubs are designed today to facilitate straight shots, it's great to see a good player hitting fades and draws on those holes.  I really can't count someone like Lietzke, who fades every shot, or Kenny Perry, who draws every shot, real old fashioned shotmakers, because they cannot hit the reverse curving shot on demand.  That's what I miss.

And I guess that's why you don't see the demand for a certain shot as much any more.

[wsmorrison]

Some of the members of the so-called "Philadelphia School" believed strongly in shot testing, including shape and trajectory.  Not only were trees used (Flynn in particular) but slopes as well where a draw is rewarded from a fade lie and vice versa.  I find shot testing a design characteristic that stands the test of time quite well and identifies the best player in a given tournament.  Even a single day tournament on such courses more often than not will identify the best player that day simply because skill is constantly being tested and luck subordinated.

Huntingdon Valley CC is a great example of shot testing demands.

[Matt Varney]

Wayne,

I agree with this belief that the best player in a tournament or a casual round with friends will come out on top scoring or in match play if tested and required to hit all the shots.

Matt

[Sean_A]

Some of the members of the so-called "Philadelphia School" believed strongly in shot testing, including shape and trajectory.  Not only were trees used (Flynn in particular) but slopes as well where a draw is rewarded from a fade lie and vice versa.  I find shot testing a design characteristic that stands the test of time quite well and identifies the best player in a given tournament.  Even a single day tournament on such courses more often than not will identify the best player that day simply because skill is constantly being tested and luck subordinated.

Huntingdon Valley CC is a great example of shot testing demands.

Wayne

I wonder about this "luck" business.  How much luck is a lot?  Is it two, three, five (un)fortunate bounces - out of how many shots?  I have never been one to subscribe to the theory of shot testing identifying the best player.  No, luck isn't a problem where comps identifying the "best player" is concerned.  I am always fascinated at how experience seems to level out the "luck" factor. 

To answer the thread, yes, demanding a certain shot shape is legit if only for the sake of variety - just don't ask the player to do this too often.

Ciao   

[Carl Rogers]

Not on every hole...

I would make a distinction between the tee shot giving the player more latitude about shot shape and a more demanding shot shape approach trying to get the ball close.

Never penalize a straight shot.

Let me ask this question in a particular circumstance .... 18 th hole at Cherry Hills, the tee shot seems to me to DEMAND (for the highly skilled golfer) a left to right shot to try counter act the severe right to left slope of the terrrain.  Does this represent a good idea?

[Tom_Doak]

I generally agree with Jeff on this question, at least as far as using trees on the tee shot.  If we built a hole with a tree blocking the left side and more trees down the right, so that everyone had to hit a draw off the tee or go in the trees right, that would be architectural brutality.  (However, it might be okay if you could lay up even with the tree and still have a reasonable shot home.)

On approach shots, though, I feel it is fine to "shot test" the golfer and say that if you can't hit a draw or a fade to counteract a slope, you may not be able to get at a certain hole location and leave yourself a shot for birdie.  However, I generally wouldn't use trees to accomplish this, UNLESS I had given the golfer plenty of room to place his tee shot to one side of the fairway, so he didn't have to play the fade or draw to get around the tree on the approach.

[Kirk Gill]

To what degree does ANGC "demand" that the player be able to play right-to-left? I seem to remember Trevino saying that his "fade" game made it almost impossible to win there.

[Richard Hetzel]

I think this topic has merit. Look at this par 5 at Birdsfoot, it demands a draw off the tee or you stand an excellent chance of losing a ball right into the tree. I hit the middle of the fairway with a fade, and the ball ran right down into the woods. At least they had the good sense to stake it red on that hole. Other than make a lower split level fairway to the right of the original fairway (or move tons of earth), I am not sure what they could have done here as they may have had land constraints.

Legitimate, sure. FAIR, not really. But, I have really never known GOLF and FAIR to be synonymous.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bart,

Can you say R   E  D  A  N ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Without wind, how well have most Redan holes held up to the increased distances and heights balls can be hit today even under firm and fast conditions?  It seems to me due to technology and maintenance practices that without wind many Redan holes can be played today in ways not thought of when designed.

[Bart Bradley]

Ok here's my opinion.

I think it is neither unfair or unreasonable for golf holes to ask me to hit shots of both shapes...I can't do it very well...but that's ok.  I just have to figure out the best way for me to play the hole with my game...that is what golf is all about.  How can it be unreasonable to ask golfers to shape their ball?  It is difficult, challenging, but I just can't figure out how is it unreasonable.  Shouldn't a golf course present as many different types of challenges as possible...isn't variety of challenge important.  I don't think every hole should demand a specific shot shape...but if some holes do, hurray..something different.

Bart

[Ken Moum]

How can it be unreasonable to ask golfers to shape their ball?  It is difficult, challenging, but I just can't figure out how is it unreasonable. 

I agree that it's not unreasonable to ASK a golfer to shape their shot.

Where I draw the line on the reasonableness test is when a hole DEMANDS thet you either shape it or take penalty strokes or make multiple, consecutive layups.

I think a hole like the one Rich Hetzel has pictured is a great example of unreasonable.

If your only real shot is a fade, you might as well go out there and drop a ball in the rough next to the trees, lying two.

It looks like great fun, hit, drop, hit.

K

[Bart Bradley]

How can it be unreasonable to ask golfers to shape their ball?  It is difficult, challenging, but I just can't figure out how is it unreasonable. 

I agree that it's not unreasonable to ASK a golfer to shape their shot.

Where I draw the line on the reasonableness test is when a hole DEMANDS thet you either shape it or take penalty strokes or make multiple, consecutive layups.

I think a hole like the one Rich Hetzel has pictured is a great example of unreasonable.

If your only real shot is a fade, you might as well go out there and drop a ball in the rough next to the trees, lying two.

It looks like great fun, hit, drop, hit.

K

K:

But it doesn't have to be that way...hit a draw!  Isn't this a GAME where trying something different is FUN?

Bart

[Ken Moum]

K:

But it doesn't have to be that way...hit a draw!  Isn't this a GAME where trying something different is FUN?

Bart

Right at the moment a draw is no problem. But if that hole called for a fade, I would enjoy it more if I wrote an X on the card and walked to the next tee.

There's nothing fun about it.  My home course for a couple of years had two holes like that and I learned to hate the place.

IMHO, rewarding a golfer for the ability to control the curve of his shots is great architecture. Leaving the one-way player with ZERO options is horrible architecture.

[Matt Varney]

Guys,

You know how golf courses keep getting longer and longer and drivers and these new balls go miles off the tee?  Requiring a player to control shot shape, trajectory and distance control with angles and contours is the only way to defend par in the modern game.

I just played golf yesterday with UT Men's golf team and watched these guys do stuff that will blow your mind.  One of their players hit driver 5 wood and flew it over the green on our 620 yard Par 5 #5 hole and on #12 a Par 5 575 yards he hit driver gap wedge to 15 feet and just missed making eagle.  Length is a given with the modern power player the only thing that can bring them to their knees and drive them nuts is shot shaping and tough angles into crowned and tiered green complexes that are well bunkered.

I feel very strongly that any good architect can design a course that is Par 70 / 7,000 yards (only two Par 5's one is reachable in 2 good shots the second is 600+ yards that requires 3 shots) with tight landing areas for the long players and smaller green complexes (5,000 to 7,000 sq ft in size) that require precision iron approach shots to tiers on well contoured slick greens rolling 11-12 on the stimp.  These new clubs and balls make even a mishit shot fly straight 250-270 yards off the tee for good players and they are still in the fairway.

Shot shaping and contour shaping during the design build process are the only defenses a course has other than course conditioning like thick rough and the weather.

Look at Pine Valley perfect example and it plays under 7,000 yards.  Tough as nails with greens and bunkers that will beat you down.  I think they have some saying that the first time you play it you will not break 90.  ProV1's, Big Drivers, Big Fairways and Big Greens = Low Scores for good players.  Shorten the course bring in the bunkers and create very unique greens that are fair but fast and make guys think.  Nothing gets in a bombers head like making him hit a 4 iron off the tee on a tight dog leg 380 yard par 4.  If he hits driver he has a great chance of getting in the tall grass or losing his ball and yet if he hits driver he has to shape the shot and fly it over trees or a water hazard to be rewarded with a flip pitch to well protected green.

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Without wind, how well have most Redan holes held up to the increased distances and heights balls can be hit today even under firm and fast conditions? 

I think they've held up quite well, especially since it's harder to work the ball.

I don't think I've ever played an EASY Redan, or a Redan that plays easy.

It seems to me due to technology and maintenance practices that without wind many Redan holes can be played today in ways not thought of when designed.

I'd agree that the high fade, achieved in combination with increased distance, has become an appealing alternate choice for the better golfer, but, it's still a very difficult shot because the carry is inherently longer.

[Chris Kane]

Is there a difference between rewarding a certain shot shape and demanding a certain shot shape?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()