[Michael Whitaker]

In the discussion about Bob Crosby's piece on Joshua Crane the subject of "proportionality" has been addressed as an integral element of Crane's analysis of a course.

In November 2005 there was a discussion about "punishing the marginal shot." During this discussion the subject of "proportionality" was also raised, at which time Tom Doak had this to say on the subject:

"... proportionality is a formula for disaster.

If the bad player is punished severely, he'll quit the game.  If the good player is not challenged to play his best shots, he won't enjoy the game and he won't ever get any better.  Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture.  

If someone tells you that a great course is one that punishes proportionally, that person is a narcissist in love with his own golf."


This statement leaves little doubt as to Tom's feelings about proportionality.

How do you feel about "proportionality" as it relates to punishing (or not) marginal shots?

[Adam Clayman]

Michael, It has always bothered me that a bad shot is not penalty enough. The opportunity and ability to recover from a bad shot, is the essence of Match Play. Proportionality appears to be the poster child of a stroke play mentality. It screams to be 'cryt doon' lying at the feet of the myth of self importance.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

I am not sure about that. I think hazards become more moderate when designed for stroke play, no?

For average players no one wants to punish them.  If they top it off the tee, not getting to the green in two shots is plenty punishement.

For decent players, the question sometimes comes up in a couple of ways - for example, with flash bunkers, often a player who missed the green by 5' is buried, but the player who misses 20' right is on the bunker bottom with a good lie.  I can understand why that doesn't make sense, although, depending on the arrangement of hazards, say with none on the other side, its sure just as logical to punish any miss right severly.

Thomas wrote about the fair green BEHIND The green on long par 4's, reasoning that a long iron miss over the green was really a better shot than one coming up short in the fw approach in front of the green.  Also makes some sense.

Proportionality is also what drives the long shot - big green (or wide fw) theory of design.  There is statistical evidence that its somewhat necessary. At the same time, many gca's raise greens on short approach shots to make bunker shots harder when the green is missed, vs a long par 4.  Also makes some sense, but is rarely consistently done because a) landforms don't always cooperate, and b) its really too much too think about consistently when very few will notice and you might make the course too hard for the average fellow.

Of course, the whole idea of graduated roughs is based on proportionality.

Overall, its not bad, but I don't think it should dicatate all architecture, like any other good idea that becomes "standard."

[Ben Sims]

I think what it come down to is a black and white decision by the designer.  Do you penalize or not?  Varying degrees of penalty mean nothing to anyone but the best of golfers.  I know many players where a bunker might as well be water, rough might as well be sand, etc.  To me, this means that the question is simple.  Example, "do I put a bunker here?"  Not, "do I put a bunker that is brutal for the good guys?"  Funny thing is, to the 5 handicap crowd and below, sand and rough are graduations of penalty.  Whereas a funny angle, or a tight lie requires much more forethought in my opinion. 

Of course, what's bad for one player is great for another.  On links courses, as long as it's on short grass, I'm happy.  Play with some of the "sticks" on this website and you'll quickly discover that just being in play isn't enough for them.  And a downhill lie to a sloped away green makes the low 'capper cringe.  But for me and many like me, I'd rather be on that short grass than in the bunker. 

[Sean_A]

I am no fan of the concept of proportionality except as a mere tid bit for a hole or two.  For one, how is proportionality proportioned? Second, proportionality is a knave attempt to reduce luck, but spirit of the game is in how folks deal with luck, both good and bad.  Golf is based on finding the ball quickly and hitting it.  This presumes that the recovery shot is at the heart of the game and I will go to my grave despising archies who want to dominate courses with immediate penalties to pay for poor shots.

Ciao   

[TEPaul]

Michael Whitaker:

First of all congratulations and thanks for starting this thread. Some of us were getting a bit disappointed that not enough were getting into and discussing the essences of Bob's essay.



"Michael, It has always bothered me that a bad shot is not penalty enough. The opportunity and ability to recover from a bad shot, is the essence of Match Play. Proportionality appears to be the poster child of a stroke play mentality. It screams to be 'cryt doon' lying at the feet of the myth of self importance."


Adam:

Please understand that I may be funnin' you a bit but it seems to me in that statement of yours I quoted you may've contradicted yourself perhaps twice and maybe even three times!!  

[TEPaul]

"... proportionality is a formula for disaster.

If the bad player is punished severely, he'll quit the game.  If the good player is not challenged to play his best shots, he won't enjoy the game and he won't ever get any better.  Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture.  

If someone tells you that a great course is one that punishes proportionally, that person is a narcissist in love with his own golf."




Let's just look at what Tom Doak said there because I certainly do remember when he said it (wherever that was I don't remember) a few of us did say it just may be about the most incisive thing ever said about golf course architecture on here.

So, just for convenience and clarity's sake, let's not take all of what he said in one entire lot; let's take it in steps.



"If the bad player is punished severely, he'll quit the game."


WHAT does THAT mean to some of you? Give some examples of golf course architecture or golf course maintenance and setup that might be a good example of something that would make a bad player get so severely punished he'd consider quiting the game?

But don't forget there is probably no golf course in the entire world that can offer all things to the entire spectrum of golfers, and THAT is probably the TRUE paradox of golf course architecture!

[David Mulle]

Great topic Mike.

I've been meaning to start a thread on the impact of knee high rough on bad golfers- but I think it fits very well into this thread.

The way that many courses maintain tall grass in front of tees and along the edges of holes seems to have two purposes (1) it looks nice and (2) it kicks golfers while they are down.

Yesterday I played at a public course that had knee high rough on the perimeter of most holes.  I was not driving the ball well and only hit 3 or 4 fairways.  But the playing corridors were fairly wide so I was never in the really thick stuff.  I got around in the low 80s - no harm no foul.  But one of the golfers I was paired with didn't come close to breaking 120.  He spent all day looking for his balls in the knee high rough 30 yards right of the fairway.

His misses were much worse than my misses but there was no need to make the course tougher for him by punishing his misses more severely.
   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Whitaker,

Features/hazards don't evaluate the talent of the golfer whose ball comes to rest in/on them, and then mete out adjusted consequences.

That's solely the function of the golfer's handicap/ability.

Features/hazards are primarily static, and as such, they're incapable of diffentiating the handicap/talent of the golfers.

However, the location of the feature/hazard is an intended design concept.
The location determines which golfers will most likely interact with that feature/hazard.

While the configuration of the feature/hazard may allow for extrication by the more talented golfer, the ultimate effect of that configuration gets incorporated into the golfer's handicap.

In the long term, or ultimate, feature/hazard design and effect translate into handicap, hence, there is no need for proportionality.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

That is actually a fairly well crafted point and argument but on some level probably not a very convincing one!

But I guess I have to ask you----if it really is true, as Tom Doak mentioned, that a golfer (bad player in Doak's description) can get so severely penalized by various architecture, maintenance, setup etc, what do you really think will depress him enough to consider quitting the game----the architecture, maintenance and set up or HIS HANDICAP??

[Dave Falkner]

Isnt the  170 or so forced carrry a perfect example of this idea?  For most low to mid handicappers it is no problem for the beginner or high handicapper  it is a nightmare.  same thing with a tee shot over water.

didnt the good Dr advocate that every hole should be playable with a putter

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael -

A question for the mix/discussion:

If the paradox resolves itself at the green-site, has proportionality actually been negated or merely postponed? If the latter, does labelling it strategic solve anything?  

Peter

[TEPaul]

"didnt the good Dr advocate that every hole should be playable with a putter"


DaveF:

I don't know if he advocated that on every hole but I believe he certainly advocated it on the famous Eden hole of TOC. Macdonald, on the other hand, distinctly advocated cutting out that possibility on his own interpretation of the Eden hole at NGLA by explaining he was putting a pond between the tee and green to foreclose that strategic possibility.

Some on here can ignore or dismiss that or parse the hell out of the actual words both used in explaining what they meant to say but the fact is what both said was crystal clear and distinctly different, at least with what their ideas were that the so-called Eden should offer.

[Tom_Doak]

Hey, this is a good idea for a topic.  I guess it only comes up every four years or so.

What I've learned over the last four years is that every single player's idea of what is "fair" is based on his own game.  Architecture that attempts to solve the problem for that one player [the architect's OWN idea of fairness, whether it's Jack Nicklaus' or mine]  leaves others in the lurch.

The single thing I've seen which concerns me the most in the past four years is all the hurrahs given to the USGA for their "graded rough" approach to U.S. Open set-ups.  Graded roughs make sense for Tour pros, except for the fact that a REALLY BAD drive winds up in the area trampled by the galleries and isn't so bad ... Tiger Woods has benefited from that a number of times in the past few years.  But the real problem is the example this sets for everyone watching on TV, because as the rough gets worse for wild shots, slow play becomes extreme, and many people are tempted to quit the game.

Tom P:  I actually look at that Macdonald story about the Eden at National differently than you do.  Whether the Eden could be played with a putter was a topic of controversy back in that day ... some players insisted that made it a great hole, others insisted that's why it wasn't.  Macdonald was certainly aware of that debate, but I think he didn't want anybody to think National wasn't great.  Plus, the hole had to be routed across a natural wetland, so I think it was more of necessity than by design to set up the hole that way, and then C.B. just took credit for that making the hole a true "championship" test.  If you'll think carefully, you'll see that most of his other Eden holes did not have a forced carry on them.

[Bill_McBride]

Great topic Mike.

I've been meaning to start a thread on the impact of knee high rough on bad golfers- but I think it fits very well into this thread.

The way that many courses maintain tall grass in front of tees and along the edges of holes seems to have two purposes (1) it looks nice and (2) it kicks golfers while they are down.

Yesterday I played at a public course that had knee high rough on the perimeter of most holes.  I was not driving the ball well and only hit 3 or 4 fairways.  But the playing corridors were fairly wide so I was never in the really thick stuff.  I got around in the low 80s - no harm no foul.  But one of the golfers I was paired with didn't come close to breaking 120.  He spent all day looking for his balls in the knee high rough 30 yards right of the fairway.

His misses were much worse than my misses but there was no need to make the course tougher for him by punishing his misses more severely.
   

David, maybe he should have figured this out at some point and aimed 30 yards left.  How many times do you hit yourself in the head before you figure out it hurts?  I suggest his punishment was fairly proportional.

[Bill_McBride]

Adam,

I am not sure about that. I think hazards become more moderate when designed for stroke play, no?

For average players no one wants to punish them.  If they top it off the tee, not getting to the green in two shots is plenty punishement.

For decent players, the question sometimes comes up in a couple of ways - for example, with flash bunkers, often a player who missed the green by 5' is buried, but the player who misses 20' right is on the bunker bottom with a good lie.  I can understand why that doesn't make sense, although, depending on the arrangement of hazards, say with none on the other side, its sure just as logical to punish any miss right severly.

Thomas wrote about the fair green BEHIND The green on long par 4's, reasoning that a long iron miss over the green was really a better shot than one coming up short in the fw approach in front of the green.  Also makes some sense.

Proportionality is also what drives the long shot - big green (or wide fw) theory of design.  There is statistical evidence that its somewhat necessary. At the same time, many gca's raise greens on short approach shots to make bunker shots harder when the green is missed, vs a long par 4.  Also makes some sense, but is rarely consistently done because a) landforms don't always cooperate, and b) its really too much too think about consistently when very few will notice and you might make the course too hard for the average fellow.

Of course, the whole idea of graduated roughs is based on proportionality.

Overall, its not bad, but I don't think it should dicatate all architecture, like any other good idea that becomes "standard."

Jeff, re the long shot - big green principle, is that it's always vaguely wrong when the USGA changes a par 5 to a LONG par 4?  I've always hated that, now I know why.

[Tom MacWood]

Could someone define proportionality?

Crane disliked OB and water because he felt it was disproportionately severe - no recovery. Crane did not advocate progressively severe penalties for progressively bad shots (which is what Bob is claiming). That particular concept has been attributed to Taylor, but I don't think that is an accurate portrayal either.

There is also a well established concept the hazards should be more severe as you get nearer the target. In other words fairway bunkers are shallower and greenside bunkers deeper. Is that proportionality?

There is also spin on that idea that says the size of the green should be proportional to the length of the approach.

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael -

another question that's been on my mind lately: instead of solving the paradox, does freedom and choice actually enhance proportionality instead, by adding to the inherently physical test (of striking a golf ball) a sometimes rigourous mental test (of identifying the correct line for both a given pin position and a personal skill-set)?

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

That is actually a fairly well crafted point and argument but on some level probably not a very convincing one!

But I guess I have to ask you----if it really is true, as Tom Doak mentioned, that a golfer (bad player in Doak's description) can get so severely penalized by various architecture, maintenance, setup etc, what do you really think will depress him enough to consider quitting the game----the architecture, maintenance and set up or HIS HANDICAP??

TEPaul,

The flaw in Tom Doak's argument lies in its assumption of universality.

The entire golf course and the component and collective features aren't designed or set up to produce those results on every hole, with every feature.

Typically, it's a random feature, one that the golfer encounters only on occassion, not constantly.

Even the best players would re-evaluate their interest in the game if every hole, every feature, challenged them beyond their ability.

It's also the random nature of the game that attracts us to the game.
The unpredictable outcome of a shot, even a well thought out and executed shot, fascinates and attracts us.

Whether a golf cheats or encounters features he's ill prepared to cope with, the handicap system will factor that in and determine the golfer's scaled "weight"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isnt the  170 or so forced carrry a perfect example of this idea?  For most low to mid handicappers it is no problem for the beginner or high handicapper  it is a nightmare.  same thing with a tee shot over water.

didnt the good Dr advocate that every hole should be playable with a putter

Dave,

Could you cite me ten holes that require a carry of 170 yards from the Member's tees ?

[Dave Falkner]

Pat
off hand no,  but let me think about it.  Maybe I erred in picking out that number   but lets say for the sake of discussion it is a carry of 90 yds  I would argue in that case the forced carry disproportionatley effects the beginner or high handicapper

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael - and a thought:

The other side of the proportionality question/equation -- and maybe the way in which the paradox is resolved -- is a variation of difficulty for recovery play, where throughout the course and the course of 18 holes the options/avenues of escape from a poor shot range from easy to challenging to almost impossible. If done right, if the architect has provided enough variety in the level of difficulty, then it doesn't matter how a player has gotten to where he is, it only matters whether he's given himself a chance to get up and down or hole a putt -- with the nature of that chance and the probability of success changing from hole to hole.  (This was paraphrased from an old thread)  

This easy criticism to level against graduated rough is that it's actually very uniform -- a prime example, I think, of how the idea/ideal of fair and rigourous shot-testing takes many forms

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Michael -

another question that's been on my mind lately: instead of solving the paradox, does freedom and choice actually enhance proportionality instead, by adding to the inherently physical test (of striking a golf ball) a sometimes rigourous mental test (of identifying the correct line for both a given pin position and a personal skill-set)?

Peter

Peter, I like the notion of freedom accentuating the proportionality. I'll use an example that hopefully will be quintessential.

The scene;

Renaissance Cup; Ballyneal 2006 September. 13th $ 14th holes;



The Player;

Bill Coore

The Play; After carrying the two time master champion Ben Crenshaw, most of the day, Mr. Coore proceeded to hit a wayward drive right on the 13th, well into the native. His recovery three wood ended up left of the last left bunker in the above photo. With Tom Doak almost next to the hole Mr. Coore misses his birdie chip by inches. Tap in par.

On the next hole #14 Mr. Coore duck hooks his next shot well left and short of the bunker pictured here;



What happened next I'm a little fuzzy on, but, I assume he adeptly returned his ball to short grass then hit an approach shot to 20 feet, above the hole. After it dropped for par I knew I had witnessed something very special.

Some would argue, and most golf courses wouldn't allow, for that type of recovery. Not me, I'm convinced there's those who rise to a challenge because they have the awareness and fortitude to do so. 

As to proportionality... It may be one of those terms that have different meanings to different people, like minimalism. Afterall, I really have no idea what Jeff Brauer meant in his response to my first post n this thread.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Adam - Very funny! I like the post



175 yrd+ carries... Of the top of my head without pulling out yardage books.

1. BPB #5
2. BPB #8
3. Yale #1
4. Yale #10 Birritz
5. Yale #17
5. Friars Head #15
6. WF East #4 (close to 175)
7. CPC?
8. PV Hells 1/2 acre?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Adam, very much for that one-of-a-kind post.  (Btw, see my thought just above yours, paraphrased from an old post by one of the architects here.)  Looking at those Ballyneal photos I was reminded of what under-appreciated jazz pianist Jess Stacy said when he and his glamourous and talented wife, singer Lee Wiley, divorced in the 1940s. It went something like: "She has million-dollar tastes, and I'm a $250 a week side-man".

Peter 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()