[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I'll probably hate myself in the morning, but I'm going to say that you cannot say that, by themselves, water flanking a hole is penal or that depth of bunkering is penal, etc., etc.. For me it's not the elements of the architecture, but whether or not I'm given a way to avoid them that determines how penal or strategic the hole is in its entirety.
Where the disciplines merge is somewhat arbitrary, and because of that I don't think you can ever have ....."a lengthy detailed explanation differentiating strategic from penal architecture. I think the best that can be said is that if there is no way around the architectural elements and the player is forced to challenge them head on, then it's penal. Give the player any semblance of choice, or a way around, and you start towards the strategic, or to give a nod to Melyvn, semi-penal.

[Tom MacWood]

I agree with Bob there is no such thing as strictly Strategic or Penal architect...golf courses and architects are a blend of both, some leaning one direction or the other.

[Sean Eidson]

I think there should be a bigger distinction between penal hazards and penal designs.  For me, part of the virtue of a strategic design is how penal its hazards are AND how they work with the rest of the design.  Maybe its my capitalist nature, but I appreciate when the equation of risk and reward is appropriate.  If you take a risk and succeed, the reward should be substantial.

This is a fundamental idea, and therefore thousands of examples, but one that expresses the discreet choice best for me is the 5th hole at Pine Dunes (Below).  It's a par 5 with a split fairway.  Go left with a tight, long carry and risk jail left/right or unplayable short, but successful execution turns it into a long par 4.  Go right and there's plenty of room, but it's virtually impossible to get there in two.

Fail to execute going left and it's very penal. However, the right option gives you a different path if you're not feeling confident on the tee box.

A penal hole design wouldn't give you the choice, it would say "hit it here or else"




Borrowed from Kyle Krahenbuhl's pictorial thread on Pine Dunes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

I gave examples of holes where the Pacific Ocean flanks the entire hole.

# 4, 11 and 13 at Pac Dunes.

I could use # 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 and 18 at Pebble Beach as well.

Are they strategic or penal ?

Or does the degree of intrusion into the play of the hole determine the category.

ie, yes on # 11 at PD, no at # 13 ?

[Sean_A]

Quote from: Jeff Goldman on Yesterday at 05:18:08 PM
"The more severe, the more strategic it becomes.
The less severe, the more meaningless it becomes.

Severe bunkers cause golfers to think, plan and avoid them when possible.
They FACTOR into the mental side of the game, the strategy and play of the hole."

Not necessarily.  I continue to believe that variety is a key element and if the bunkers are just pitch-outs, something is lost.  A bunker can be so severe that no player will take the risk of playing near it.  Sometimes a less severe bunker can be more strategic, not only by encouraging aggressive play to challenge the bunker -- because the bunker is seen as not penal, but also encourage aggressive play out of the bunker for the same reason -- it appears an easy shot.  This is sometimes referred to as "enticing the player to do something dumb."



Jeff

I disagree with you.  Bunkers should be severe, but perhaps not nearly so prevalent.  It should be rare thing indeed for a course to have, say, 50 or more bunkers on it.  

Ciao
 
Thought I would bring this over here, where it seems more appropriate.  I think Sean is missing a crucual element --  variety.  Every bunker being severe, and limiting the number seems to prevent more clever ways to do things.  Tom Doak wrote about the first green at Pinehurst, which slopes right to left, and where Ross put the greenside bunker on the left, easy side.  Anyone fooled into playing away from teh bunker and misses the green has a downhill pitch.  

As to the depth of bunkers, on one Knoll hole I am familiar with, the bunkers are on the right, guarding the favored side of the fairway.  However, they are not real deep, which encourages players to think about playing near them.  If the golfer lands in one, the fact that they are not deep makes golfers think about going for the green, which has a SEVERE penalty for missing.  

This is what I mean by encouraging the player to do something dumb.  A deep penal bunker would remove much of this interest.

Jeff

Severe bunkers and variety are not mutually exclusive.  Also, there are different levels of severe.  I think people are thinking by severe that it means a pitch in any direction just to get out - not necessarily so.  I would say many of the greenside bunkers at Yeamans are severe because of the nature of the sand (dirt?), the depth (often times a 8-10 foot height shot required) of the bunkers, the firmness of the greens and the fact that a good shot gets you about 10-15 feet from the hole most of the time.  I would also add the placement of the bunker also.  However, none of the bunkers are all that difficult to get out of.  IN this thread, depth is the only aspect of severe that is being focused on when in reality it is only one part of the puzzle for creating severe bunkers.  

Can you think of one bunker that you believe to be severe which nobody trifles with?  I gave the example of Tobacco Road's 11th.  There aren't many more severe hazards than that, yet I see folks taking it on because its there as much as anything else.  Like Jeff B, I think you need to separate between fun/competitive rounds and competitive/fun rounds of golf.  Golfers often don't do the sensible thing because many times that would reduce their fun.

Ciao

[Cristian]

I think there should be a bigger distinction between penal hazards and penal designs.  For me, part of the virtue of a strategic design is how penal its hazards are AND how they work with the rest of the design.  Maybe its my capitalist nature, but I appreciate when the equation of risk and reward is appropriate.  If you take a risk and succeed, the reward should be substantial.

This is a fundamental idea, and therefore thousands of examples, but one that expresses the discreet choice best for me is the 5th hole at Pine Dunes (Below).  It's a par 5 with a split fairway.  Go left with a tight, long carry and risk jail left/right or unplayable short, but successful execution turns it into a long par 4.  Go right and there's plenty of room, but it's virtually impossible to get there in two.

Fail to execute going left and it's very penal. However, the right option gives you a different path if you're not feeling confident on the tee box.

A penal hole design wouldn't give you the choice, it would say "hit it here or else"




Borrowed from Kyle Krahenbuhl's pictorial thread on Pine Dunes.

If I read and understood Tom D's Anatomy well, than this is not penal or strategic but heroic design; Penal would be a hole without the fairway on the right, strategic would be a hole where the tree's in the middle are not there and the sandy scrub area would be a diagonal hazard, where every player can decide, within a broad bracket, how much carry to take on, and how much risk to take. As an opposite to do or don't.

Advantage of such a style is that the hole works for players of different ability and length of the tee.

I wonder whether a golf course should have this kind of strategy prevailing on every hole, and if not what would we prefer as the ideal mix between heroic, penal and strategic? How about 3h 2p 13s? Or is it dependant on the course? Open, wooded, parkland, links, championship, ....?

How do archies make these decisions?

As I do not want to Hijack a thread, I am making a new one.... please respond at: "Strategic, Heroic and Penal holes on one course"

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

You said, “Maybe it’s my capitalist nature, but I appreciate when the equation of risk and reward is appropriate.  If you take a risk and succeed, the reward should be substantial.”

In principal, I do not disagree with your statement, however that may work well with most golfers up to the low handicap players. The more skilled golfer will inevitably seek the more direct route to minimise his/her score. I believe the real secret to your approach would be to have the ball travel limited/reduced and controlled, forcing the game to play along the line of the Gutty/Haskell distances of say the early 20th Century. This would bring the fairways back into play, which I feel is an important part of the game and ideal hazards territory. This is outside of the remit of the architects and designers and rests in the hands of our Governing Bodies. Yet again, I am pulled towards the distance the ball can currently travel at the hands of the Professional or low handicapped player. This one problem needs to be addressed soon, IMHO it holds the key to the whole game from distance, long courses,  cost for constantly modifying the existing,  more enjoyment for the spectator/TV viewer, but I expect will drag on for many more years before it is properly debated let alone acted upon. 

I believe the reduced ball travel will re-open up the game, adding more enjoyment, allow more understand and feel towards the course and the architecture, give a better feel for value for money and may even help speed up the game.

Yes I firmly believe limiting the distance a ball can travel will reinvent the game bring more fun, pleasure to the golfer and also allows the fairways to really come in to play. Strategic has to be Penal otherwise, it is not really strategic.

Melvyn

[Niall C]

We constantly talk about bunkers being hazards and as such dictating the strategy in the sense that they are there to be avoided. Does anyone think it legitimate to think of sand as just another surface and one which it might be more advantagious to be playing out of ? Often you will here TV commentators say that the player would have been better off landing in the greenside bunker rather than the greenside rough but I doubt I've ever seen a player deliberately aim for a bunker as the preferred option rather than risk going for a tricky green and risk landing in rough.

I dare say for some of these top guys playing out of sand might even be preferable to chipping from the short stuff. I don't see why sand always has to be a hazard and if some players are better out of sand than others well good luck to them. It would of course blur the lines between penal and strategic given the different ability of various players but good course design shouldn't be formulaic and same for all anyway.

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Adam Clayman]

My initial thought was of the creek on 13 @ Augusta. What a wonderful use of a hazard whatever you want to call the design school. Niall. There's an old story about obf the greats (Hogan?) who would always play for the bunker because the green was so difficult and he was a great bunker player. Sorry the synapse isn't recalling the hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

The fourth at Pacific Dunes is one of my most underrated holes.

Some have dismissed it because there is water all the way down the right.  They are missing the key feature of the hole -- the tilt of the fairway and green from left to right, which is enough that the further you play away from the cliff line with your tee shot, the harder the second shot becomes, and the more safely you have to play the approach.

There are a couple of bunkers on the left in the landing area, and another just short of the green on the left, which complicate things a bit but do not diminish the general strategic element of the tilt.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Intrusion would be part of it, if a 40' deep bunker was well off into the rough it wouldn't be very penal, or strategic.

All I'm saying is that 'Penal', at least for me, is only those holes where there is no way to play the hole without directly challenging some obstacle or another. 'Strategic' takes over from there, and runs its course until it butts up against the
'Anti-Strategic'. 

There is no other way for me to look at it, at least not without burning out a few circuits. I need a cut and dried definition and the above works for me. I only need to know that if I come to a hole and I'm forced to carry the ball to the fairway, then forced to carry it all the way to the green, I've just played a 100% penal hole. On the other hand if I can bat it just about anywhere, without worry, and then skull it onto the green I know I've just played the 100% anti-strategy hole.

Hopefully most of what we play falls somewhere between those extremes and the debate will go on as to what constitutes what. Much of it can only be described as strategic, w/various degrees of severity. I don't think it needs rating, and Joshua Crane had too much time on his hands.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

The fourth at Pacific Dunes is one of my most underrated holes.

Tom, I'm not aware of anyone who underrates it.
That's a good, difficult hole, from tee to green.

Some have dismissed it because there is water all the way down the right.  They are missing the key feature of the hole -- the tilt of the fairway and green from left to right, which is enough that the further you play away from the cliff line with your tee shot, the harder the second shot becomes, and the more safely you have to play the approach.

That feature seems to be rarely recognized by golfers unless it's not so subtle.
I know the 3rd hole at GCGC has a similar, although right to left tilt, causing draws, hooks and pulls.
I like the left to right tilt of both fairway and green when trouble looms large, to the left.

There are a couple of bunkers on the left in the landing area, and another just short of the green on the left, which complicate things a bit but do not diminish the general strategic element of the tilt.

[TEPaul]

"I question how many he actually built (and during what period). And to my knowledge Ross never referred to them as top shot bunkers - that term is modern invention."


Actually Ross did refer to them as top shot bunkers. I have what might be referred to as a master plan from Ross in 1927 for my club, GMGC (1916). It's written in Ross' handwriting and he refers to them as top shot bunkers. At GMGC there were top shot bunkers on fourteen holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

With 14 top shot bunkers, do you think that top shot bunkers served as a "Minimum" requirement for golfers to engage the golf course ?

Sort of like, If you couldn't clear them you shouldn't be on the golf course.

Could they have been the "price of admission" or the "entrance exam" to get on the golf course ?

Ross had many courses with top shot bunkers.
Obviously he put them there for a specific purpose.

Was it to discourage inept golfers from playing the course ?

Were they designed to send inept golfers to the club pro for lessons ?

Their nature, and the nature of the golfer who confronted them, most likely with fear, was the inferior player.

Hence, Ross gave no leeway, no accomodation to that player.  In fact, he punished and discouraged them.

Why ?

Were they a product of his Scotish roots ? 
His stint as a golf professional ?

Did he want to rid his courses of those golfers incapable of meeting minimum playing standards ?

 

[Adam Clayman]

Did he want to rid his courses of those golfers incapable of meeting minimum playing standards ?

I doubt the motus was one of exclusion. Where do you get that impression? You'd think a guy who designed a zillion courses would want everyone, or as many as possible, to enjoy them.

It seems contrary to the spirit of the game the way I've learned it. Do, or did, the Scots ever treat the sport as an elitist game?  Perhaps Ross just wanted to challenge the newer golfer so that they would get better?

To me PENAL is non recoverable no fun and uninspiring, Putting bunkers in the way, no matter how deep is not penal. It's testing.

[john_stiles]

My thought is that the top shot bunker was so that, in the day of 'really' fast and firm given no fairway irrigation, the topped fast running drive was not rewarded.

At Holston Hills CC, in 1926,  Ross still had 5 holes with top-shot bunkers.

[john_stiles]

And speaking of strategic, and penal,  what is up with some course changes (like at Hazeltine) where you put bunkers left and right in the landing zone ?   How easy is to do that ?  I would judge very easy if alll you are trying to do is make it 'tougher.'

Why would you even bother hiring an architect if you wanted penal ?

When the  14th at Secession became penal,  very penal,  another architect was invited to finish the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Did he want to rid his courses of those golfers incapable of meeting minimum playing standards ?

I doubt the motus was one of exclusion.
Where do you get that impression?From the introduction of 14 top shot bunkers.


You'd think a guy who designed a zillion courses would want everyone, or as many as possible, to enjoy them.

It seems contrary to the spirit of the game the way I've learned it.
Do, or did, the Scots ever treat the sport as an elitist game? 
Perhaps Ross just wanted to challenge the newer golfer so that they would get better?


Challenge the new golfer ?  Or discourage him and send him on his way.
14 top shot bunkers on one golf course is more than a challenge to the new golfer.
It's a clear signal to see the pro or give up the game.

To me PENAL is non recoverable no fun and uninspiring, Putting bunkers in the way, no matter how deep is not penal.
It's testing.

Doesn't that depend upon the ability of the golfer.
The bunker is static in form and function, the only variable is the golfer.
What's not penal for a zero handicap may be penal for a 20 handicap.
If a 20 handicap can't get out of the D.A at PV, is that a penal bunker ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adam

“It seems contrary to the spirit of the game the way I've learned it. Do, or did, the Scots ever treat the sport as an elitist game?  Perhaps Ross just wanted to challenge the newer golfer so that they would get better?”

To me PENAL is non-recoverable no fun and uninspiring, Putting bunkers in the way, no matter how deep is not penal. It's testing.

Let’s take your last point first.
I totally agree that if one can exit a bunker, last resort being a common sense retreat then it has worked as first a trap and then a test to the golfers own strategy (that being something, I feel, we do not teach anymore). The most PENAL hole is the one with these lakes/ponds surrounding the Greens – it’s as if the designers has had a mental block and decided ‘what the hell, I pissed with the design anyway, so lets screw up others as well’. These killer holes are not tests, they are not tests they are just a cop out by the designer. As mentioned before its screws the hole, it kills the round and destroys the enjoyment of golf for that particular golfer. Tell me, where is the test in that?

Hazards are HAZARDS for those who may have forgotten that means ‘BE WARE’ use you brains and whatever skill you possess to navigate this course with care. Any bunker that allows the ball to bounce out is not a trap, therefore not a hazard. Strategic is fine but that requires Penal hazards for the golfer to work out his own strategy for each hole. Are we also trying to stop the golfer thinking as well, thus making him wonder if he is alive or just dreaming his life away as its all so very easy for him.

Adam, as for your first point, yes in the early days only the rich could afford to play golf, as club and more so ball were very expensive. With the introduction of the Gutta Percha ball by the middle of the 19th Century, golf was able to reach more as it became more affordable. Many new clubs formed and with agreement played on the same courses as the rich. i.e. Prestwick Golf Club let Prestwick St Nicholas use their course. Many other clubs in different parts of the country followed their lead, but the course soon became congested, so the new clubs moved seeking their own land and course. These clubs did not have much money and leased land from the Landed Gentry who too started to have an interest in the game. Let’s not forget that the super rich had their own private courses and would also have been members of some of the very old and established clubs.

The boom in golf was down to it being more affordable, thus no longer exclusive to the Earls, Dukes and Landed Gentry etc, yet the old and established clubs still retained the air of respectability (loads of money) and many of their Members continued their elitists ways but not all.

As for Ross, remember he was trained under Old Tom and Sutherland, both of the opinion that golf was for all who wanted to play, not just for the Gentry. Although, they both designed courses for the very wealthy in their day.   

Melvyn
   

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #38 the only price of admission I'm aware of at GMGC have been initiation fees or green fees. As far as your other questions of Ross's reasons for top shot bunkers, he did not give his reasons for them in that 1927 master plan. My only reason for mentioning that 1927 Ross master plan and top shot bunkers was to inform Tom MacWood he is wrong in thinking that Ross never referred to those bunkers as top shop bunkers and that the term is only some modern invention.

[Adam Clayman]

MM. We are in total agreement about hazards, save for the bouncing out part. That is not ALWAYS true and should be left up to the specific situation based on randomness and run o green. Don't misundestand that I feel all bunkers should be flattish to allow for the bounce out but should a ball happen to do so it may not be the fault of the hazard, but more due to the trajectory firmness and luck of the player. I.e. 17th @ Sawgrass. My first attempt hit in the bunker bounced out and went into the water. I laughed as I relished how unique that mustve been.  Thanks for pointing out the inclusive nature old Tom and his disciples felt about golf. I seriously doubt Mr. Mucci has played with a newer golfer in a very long time let alone see them on a daily basis. But I could be wrong.   

[Tom MacWood]

"I question how many he actually built (and during what period). And to my knowledge Ross never referred to them as top shot bunkers - that term is modern invention."


Actually Ross did refer to them as top shot bunkers. I have what might be referred to as a master plan from Ross in 1927 for my club, GMGC (1916). It's written in Ross' handwriting and he refers to them as top shot bunkers. At GMGC there were top shot bunkers on fourteen holes.

TEP
Based on your vivid imagination we will assume you imagined Ross used the term until proof is forthcoming. Have you seen the term 'fore bunker'?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Is not the "price of admission" a minimum standard game.

Could Ross's 14 top shot bunkers be the equivalent of the big sign that sits on the first tee at Bethpage Black  ?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Based on your vivid imagination we will assume you imagined Ross used the term until proof is forthcoming."

Tom MacWood:

"We" will assume I imagined Ross used the term top shot bunker in the 1927 GMGC master plan until proof is forthcoming??  


WHO is "We", you and Moriarty? In that case who the hell cares? Certainly not me. Proof is not going to be forthcoming on here for you two, that's for sure, but if anyone else cares to come to GMGC or my barn office I would be glad to show them Ross' 1927 master plan for GMGC where he used the term 'top shot bunkers.' Then you can tell them as well they are only saying that because they too have a vivid imagaination.   For you, just go ahead and keep thinking or assuming he never used that term and it's some modern invention. "We" will just add your assumption to the rest of the long list of things you say on here (generally prefaced by "To my knowledge" ) that are in error or you don't think could be true because YOU have never read them.  

Ross himself used the term "top shot bunkers" and that's a fact whether you're ever aware of it or not! 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Why wouldn't Ross have called these fore bunkers 'topped shot' bunkers. I can't see why he would have use the term 'top' shot as that's pretty meaningless.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()