[Charlie Goerges]

This has been something on my mind lately. I know there are great holes following each method of temptation, and some use both. I'm curious if these categories leave anything out. I'd also like to get folks' opinions on them.

What type do you prefer (if a preference exists for you)?

What is needed to make a hole with 'shades of gray' work? How about a hole with distinct options?

Is one more difficult to design than the other?

Is one more common than the other?



BTW I think of 'shades of gray' as a hole in which the challenge and reward are progressive (i.e. the closer one challenges a hazard or line, the progressively easier the next shot is). Hopefully distinct options is relatively clear.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm a "shades of gray" guy.

The problem with holes that have distinct options is that 95% of the time the designer has a "preferred" option in mind that makes the second shot easier, and then designs the hole so that most people can't physically take the preferred route ... leaving them with an impossible (for them) second shot.  To my mind, if you're going to do an option hole, the "A" route should favor ACCURACY, not length off the tee.

[Norbert P]

  I like the discovery of understanding the hole as I walk it, not as I see it from the tee. And I don't mind being fooled.  In fact, I get a kick out of that when it happens. So, "shades of green and gold and red and brown" for me.

[George Pazin]

Like Slag, I prefer the full technicolor array.

The biggest problem with distinct options as I have observed them is that they are generally seen as an end in and of themselves, so little attention is paid to further detail. For example, if a split fairway option exists, the differences are almost entirely yardage oriented. Rarely does it seem one is asked to choose between blind and visible, flatter stance versus sloped stance, etc.

Tom D pointed it out many years ago on here - the problem with distinct choices is that they are generally too obvious and thus become almost trivial (that is my paraphrasing of Tom's words, and the part beyond "and" is added by me, though it is something I inferred from Tom's posts).

Charlie, I don't know if you were on here then, but I started a thread awhile ago (probably a couple years ago now) titled something like "Is the pursuit of natural all about the look" or something like that that touched on some of this. Being a graphics geek, I like to think of golf design as either 1) black and white 2) grayscale or 3) full color. I've long argued that black and white courses are too prevalent now and are very overrepresented on the rankings, as they tend to be the easiest to understand.

[Jason Topp]

Shades of grey

If I know the course, it is almost impossible for a split fairway hole to present a difficult decision off the tee.

[Tom_Doak]

George:  I agree with your quote that
     "Rarely does it seem one is asked to choose between blind and visible, flatter stance versus sloped stance, etc."

I'm all for having, say, a hole that makes you choose between a visible approach with an awkward angle to the green, vs. a blind approach with a better angle.  Few designers present such choices ... most feel obliged to set up their holes so that there is clearly a BETTER option but it's harder to get there.  The problem with that is that the good players can all get there so it's easy for them, and they're the ones we should be trying to challenge.

[Charlie Goerges]

Interesting points all. I was prompted to ask because of a list of great holes. I can only remember 3 of them, but 2 are distinct options (Cypress Point 16, and Riviera 10), and the other was a mix, with more shades of gray (ANGC 13). Those are my categorizations (if I remember correctly). I think the first two are fairly clear, the third may not be, but at ANGC 13, the further left you place the tee shot, the easier the second shot is (regardless of whether you lay up or go for it). Obviously not every hole can be either style, but I thought an exploration of what it means to be of one 'style' or the other might be interesting.

[Rob Rigg]

I would argue that the average golfer would likely appreciate seeing a lot more "shades of gray" approaches to golf course design because when they are asked to hit a particular shot it is often impossible.

For example, a dogleg that requires a long drive to a precise area on the fairway to open up the green is rarely going to be enjoyable for the average golfer who tends to be happy if he hits it in the fairway, never mind the right part of the fairway.

If the drive in the "right" area of the fairway provided a clear view of the green but a full carry to get there, for example, the golfer who is quality enough to hit that drive will be challenged again on the approach. For the average golfer in the middle or wrong side of the fairway, maybe the view to the pin is obscured, but the area if front of the green could be "safe" so when they miss short they are not severely punished.

Many courses reward the long and accurate hitter on the drive, and then make the second too easy for them, while the average golfer is challenged to hit a 1 in 10 drive and then a 1 in 10 approach over water, bunkers, etc. etc.

I would argue that a minimalistic design philosophy tends towards providing golfers with a "shades of gray" experience on the course, but building in distinct options often, but not always, will require the hand of man to create an all or nothing consequence for not executing "properly".

[Sean_A]

I can't say which is better because they are both desirable.  Its like saying sand is better than water because there is a chance of recovery.  Thats clearly the stuff of nonsense if only because sometimes its desirable to have a do or die shot.  Because one is likely used more than another doesn't make it better.  Its all about knowing the how to balance these hazards.  This is where the archie earns his crust.  Whether we like the balance or not is not a question of which is better, its more a question of which do we prefer given all the other criteria.

Ciao

[Matthew Runde]

I'm a "shades of gray" guy.

The problem with holes that have distinct options is that 95% of the time the designer has a "preferred" option in mind that makes the second shot easier, and then designs the hole so that most people can't physically take the preferred route ... leaving them with an impossible (for them) second shot.  To my mind, if you're going to do an option hole, the "A" route should favor ACCURACY, not length off the tee.

Hmmm...I seem to have read that somewhere before...

Tom, it's nice to have you share your thoughts here, and kudos on your growing reputation.

[Emil Weber]

While 'shades of gray' is probably harder to design (?) I think that distinct options can be just as interesting. What I like about it is that you really have to choose AND excecute the shot well. It's either or. Take WW's 4th and 15th holes, for example. If you hit the "2nd" Fairways, the next shots are easier. But if you slightly miss the shot, whether it's right or left, you're in trouble.

On a "shades of grey" hole mis-hits are mostly toleratd on at least one side. Let's say there's bunker on the left side of the fairway, from where you have a better angle into the green. You choose to play aggressive and go for the left side of the fairway. Your tee-shot slices and you end up middle of the fairway and nothing happens. So in that way, "shades of grey" holes might be less daunting

[Ben Sims]

I've been reading this thread and I have to agree with most everything presented here.  For me, one of the ultimate shades of gray holes I've played to date is Pac Dunes #6.  What makes it even more interesting is that you can visualize almost every option from the tee and the shot required on approach. I think the architect was able to give the player distinct options on the tee whilst confusing his approach game.  Four distinct option exist, all with varying penalties and challenges.

1) Easiest tee shot.  Short middle, leaves mid iron uphill to skinny green sloping to the right.

2) Second easiest tee shot, long left.  Leaves impossible blind approach over big bunker to skinny green sloping away from player.

3) Third easiest tee shot, over right fairway bunker.  Leaves 60 yard pitch to skinny green sloped  quartering right towards the player.  Maybe the best play.

4) Hardest option, bomb it!  Gotta hit the upslope in front just right and hope it doesn't roll of the right side.  If it does, it leaves a tough up and down for birdie, even par really.

IMHO, one of he easiest bogies and one of the hardest birdies on the course.  I do disagree with Sean in the respect that both are desirable.  I think obvious challenges have their place in GCA, but to really appreciate the game, varying degrees of options and "the roll of the green" are essential in continued enjoyment.

[Ben Sims]

After re-reading that post, I feel I need to clarify.   I said "distinct option" insofar as there are distinct areas of play from the tee of that hole.  However, as Mr. Goerges states " I think of 'shades of gray' as a hole in which the challenge and reward are progressive (i.e. the closer one challenges a hazard or line, the progressively easier the next shot is).

This is where #6 at PD shines.  But I do appologize to the reader if my use of the term "distinct options" was taken to mean "black and white" instead of "shades of gray."  That hole is definitely not black and white.

[George Pazin]

Pine Barrens #4



Galloway #18

Charlie, Mike posted this on another thread and I thought it fit this one well.

[David_Elvins]

Shades of Grey are designed from the green working backwards.

Distinct options are designed from the tee working forwards.

[Anthony Gray]

I'm a "shades of gray" guy.

The problem with holes that have distinct options is that 95% of the time the designer has a "preferred" option in mind that makes the second shot easier, and then designs the hole so that most people can't physically take the preferred route ... leaving them with an impossible (for them) second shot.  To my mind, if you're going to do an option hole, the "A" route should favor ACCURACY, not length off the tee.

  Tom,

  No. 6 at Pacific Dunes always comes to my mind. Do you agree? I simply love how that wide fairway to the left looks so inviting until you get down there and see your secound shot from that position. I wou;d love to know your thought of the design for that hole.

  Anthony

[Carl Rogers]

Example:

The 10th at Riverfront is a straight away shortish par 4 with a smallish pot bunker in the approx middle of the fairway (the only such bunker on the course).  From the white tees, I can knock it over the bunker, but from the blue tees I can't.

The angled green and adjacent greenside bunkering favors a tee shot the right side of the fairway when the flagstick is in the front.  When the flagstick is rear, the best way to get it close is to drive down the left side of the fairway.

The hole does not have to be played that way but the margin of error over deep bunkers, even on the short wedge is far tighter if you are on the 'wrong' side.

Tom, to me the hole, like all the holes at Riverfront is terrific but it does seem 'black and white' to me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()