[Tom MacWood]

There was quite a bit written about the Strategic and Penal schools in the twenties and thirties. We know many of the members of the Strategic school were, many of these architects told us they were firmly in that camp. Crane was one of the few names placed in the Penal camp, though he strongly objected to that inclusion. Of course Crane was not a golf architect, who were the golf architects who were associated with the Penal School?

[Ulrich Mayring]

J. H. Taylor, if you would count him as a golf architect. The early Walter Travis.

Ulrich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Although not an architect, I expect that Jeff & Tom D would, without hesitation put me in the penal (Nasty Hazards) school.

A slight variation to your post Tom, however still on the subject to Strategic and Penal.

I feel that the definition of Strategic needs to be clarified, as it would seem to mean many things but certainly not perhaps strategic in the conventional sense.

Strategic and Penal in my opinion should refer to challenging and testing of ones skill and ability to read the course (the landscape, contours and hazards). Yet it seems to equate to Easy with strategic or is that Strategic as easy, never quite remember.

I now view strategic as the soft weak option and have naturally grown more in favour of what is IMHO laughingly called Penal. As I have mentioned, Penal is now the only real option, which facilitates a challenging round of golf. I suppose it depends on the individual as to what he/she is seeking but the thing I seek is enjoyment otherwise just what is the point of walking some 6,000 yard plus. Perhaps we are playing with the National psyche, the willingness and ability to address an error, accept a change of tactics or even a side or full retreat backwards prior to facing the challenges again. Some consider that defeatist, I would use the word strategic, then, perhaps we have Robert The Bruce to thank for that with his little spider tradition.

I would certainly call for a strategic game around some penal hazards as being a most enjoyable way to spend a day golfing. However, we then have the National Psyche kicking in with many enjoying a ride around a course seeing how far they can hit a ball, uninterrupted by challenging hazards with all information at hand to enjoy an uncomplicated and relaxing ride of golf.

I know what I like, it must push my game either in the fun or skill department, otherwise, I see very little point. I might as well just stay in the clubhouse bar all day in a comfortable seat enjoying my drinks (come to think of it, sound a bit like golfing on a cart).

No, we need to define the word Strategic. Penal, we seem to understand but do we really understand Strategic – is that not what our countries have done in the two last Gulf Wars, won all the battles but lost the war for the lack of a good but simple effective strategy. That’s why we need to define the word so we all fully understand what it actually means to each of us. Strategic in its modern roll seem to convey to me the word weak, indecisive, the proverbial wet and sweaty handshake, which is certainly not my understanding of the word.   

The Game of Golf was never intended to be easy, if it were easy what is the bloody point of it all.

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

1. You first need to weed out who was in the penal and strategic schools from their writings and then from their work.  I believe the penal school didn't properly exist as we know it today (meaning fairly common) until probably the 1950s with Oakland Hills.  Though I suspect courses like Oakmont were constantly being upgraded to become more and more penal.

2. I don't believe the penal school is dominant today like many believe.  It may be very prevalent for pro golf venues, but these are a very small minority of courses.  

3. Take away the rough (which I am not sure many archies really advocated anyway) and there are even fewer penal courses.  

4. While the dichotomy between the two schools of thought makes it easy to separate and identify styles of architecture, there really is no such thing as two schools of thought.  What we are really talking about is a continuum with strategic design being the overwhelming influence.  Most courses dip into penal design here and there, but very few could be called truly penal. Therefore, very few archies could be called truly penal unless they built very few courses such as Fownes.  Take Braid for instance, you label him as a penal archie and that may be the case from a review of what he wrote.  However, his work in the ground tells a very different story.

Melvyn

Nasty hazards are very much part of strategic design.  Its how they are placed which classifies them.

You continue to talk about golf not being easy.  Of course, that is relative.  Have you EVER played a course which you thought was easy and your score reflected this ease?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I won't speak for TD, but yeah, I lean towards putting you in the "penal" support group.......not that there's anything wrong with that!

Sean,

Your examples are extreme, and famous, of course.  Would you consider Ross top shot, or any of the cross bunkers in early fw designs to be penal?  For any individual shot, if there is no way around a hazard, or even no bail out on a green (ringed by hazard) that is a penal shot, at least for the average player.

I think all the writings were puffed up to make the gca sound important (i.e., sales pieces)  In reality, they all realized that angling fw, putting hazards mostly to the side and mostly where better players hit it was the most efficient way to design a course - and this well before Tilly went on his tour in 1935!

[Sean_A]

Melvyn,

I won't speak for TD, but yeah, I lean towards putting you in the "penal" support group.......not that there's anything wrong with that!

Sean,

Your examples are extreme, and famous, of course.  Would you consider Ross top shot, or any of the cross bunkers in early fw designs to be penal?  For any individual shot, if there is no way around a hazard, or even no bail out on a green (ringed by hazard) that is a penal shot, at least for the average player.

I think all the writings were puffed up to make the gca sound important (i.e., sales pieces)  In reality, they all realized that angling fw, putting hazards mostly to the side and mostly where better players hit it was the most efficient way to design a course - and this well before Tilly went on his tour in 1935!

Jeff

Top shot bunkers are often mentioned for Ross.  How many did he actually build?  Do those top shot bunkers define his courses as penal?  As I say, I think all archies dip into the penal school now and then (and rightly so!), but nearly all remain firmly on the strategic end of the continuum.  I would say that all of the archies who have at least a handful of courses to their credit and are categorized as POSSIBLY penal are modern archies - though I don't know who they would be.  Jeepers, even the famed penal Oakland Hills probably only has about half the holes as truly penal and as you say - this is an extreme example. Personally, I think way too much is made of the dichotomy because both (or even all) schools of thought are important to creating good courses. 

Finally, to me, a centre-line hazard is not penal if there is fairway space to go around.  In fact, if there is room on both sides I would say that centre-line hazards are the most strategic of all hazards.  To a large degree, hazards can be defined by how wide the fairways are around them.  If the hazard covers all or nearly all of the width of the fairway (even if it is angled), it is essentially penal in nature.  This is why I am constantly harping on about taking the fairway around bunkers.  First, the bunker is brought more into play with the roll and there is often an option of going around the bunker.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Golf is a challenge, the degree of challenge is another matter, but easy was never part of the game. The 19th Century newspaper reports on new courses stated them challenging. The early definition of good courses were judged by the challenge of its game, but word easy was never used.

I have indeed played courses that offer very little real challenge, I have also played courses that seemed to offer a simpler hole every now and again as if a rest hole.

Normally I do not use the word easy, just on this site where others seem to believe is part and parcel of the game of golf.

My reason for playing golf is the enjoyment of the game, the ability to test myself or just enjoy the quality of the course. I was never a potential champion so played for my contentment and satisfaction. Yes, all things are indeed relative.

Jeff

I must say that I would not put myself in that school but strategic would be my preferred choice, but that school, I fell the need for the appropriate Education Department to step in as it is IMHO failing its pupils forcing us to seek more worthwhile options. As you know I am not in favour of hitting hell out of the ball on the Tee, it proves very little in my way of thinking but certainly goes a long way to damage the older existing courses. The answer is not to continue extending our courses, sooner or late The R&A will have to address the question regards the distance the golf ball is allowed to travel. Technology we have, yet money dictates that there is no will to change for the moment.

Perhaps the time is coming to change the R&A, to take serious action and strip them of all authority over the game of golf.  Now that’s penal for the simple reason of their appalling strategy of not protecting the game.

Melvyn         

[Tom_Doak]

Melvyn:

These terms are not very good for describing what a golf architect does.

When a hole is laid out in a "penal school" fashion -- i.e., lots of bunkers to the sides and off the tee to catch every potential poor shot -- then it's pretty much inevitable that the architect will make most of those hazards relatively soft and easy to get out of.  If he didn't, he'd be out of business quickly.  I'm sure you would agree that's not how most championship links have been laid out, though the R & A at present seems to be moving in that direction by adding 20 fairway bunkers before each new Open.

By contrast, as I said earlier, if you really want to build a strategic hole, you will build only a couple of bunkers per hole, but you want those bunkers to really sting (some would call them "penal"), so that players will learn to respect the strategy of the hole.

One point that has not been made yet is that much of the idea of the strategic school was that if you shied away from the fairway bunker too far, you would either have an impossible angle to the green for the next shot, OR BE OUT OF RANGE OF THE GREEN IN TWO.  Many architects back then talked about holes "of a good length," and St. Andrews was especially praised for having a lot of strong two-shotters.  Sadly, all of that has now gone by the wayside.  A good player could hit an iron off the tee short of the fairway bunkers and still easily get home in two on most of today's holes.

We can continue to talk around this subject in generalities but I have to say if you think I am in favor of "easy" courses, you must not have played anything I've built.  A course like Pacific Dunes can seem easy some days in benign conditions (as can most links), but the main criticism I've heard of it is that some people think the hazards are too severe.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

I was reading about a course that may be remodeled soon.  The article stated that it is being renovated to make it easier.......I know you are disappointed!

Frankly, things have changed a lot since the early days of golf, and its not so suprising that golf has as well.  I have written about this before, but IMHO, golf started when life was tougher, and the sport DID reflect that.  As life has evened out (economically, believe it or not right now) and we have more conveniences in life, golf reflects that, too, at least IHMO.  And, it probably should.  

Golf courses getting easier isn't new.  Its a long, gradual trend, and the revelation to early American designers that you could build a course with fewer hazards and still make it play well for good players was a significant milestone in gca.

Sean,

I think we are in basic agreement, but using slightly different word choices.  I guess, giving that we assessed our options and took different routes, we in the golfclubatlas.com strategic school, no?

TD,

While I agree with your post, and usually do more severe bunkers if there are only a few, I do believe that if the hazards get TOO severe, the strategy of the hole is limited, i.e., the golfer's only good option is to play defensively.  That is more true now with high spin balls, aerial game, etc. than it was in the Golden Age.  As I said somewhere recently, why challenge a fw hazard with a driver when you can hold the green with a 5 iron?  In many ways, the risk really isn't worth it, unless you are REALLY on your game.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

True, but apparently you haven't been watching how many dumb golfers pull out the driver all the time anyway, either because they think it's their right, or because the hazards are not really severe enough to make them think about strategy.

[Adam Clayman]

Golf's a great game but has become a lousy business. If the likes of Behr, Jones, MacKenzie and others philosophy had been heeded golf might've been a better business. Not because it was made easy but because it is more fun requiring more thinking because the shots are not dictated. They are conceived creatively by each individual.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Penal - one way to play the hole.
Strategic - several options.

Nowhere in these definitions does it say anything about "easy" or "hard". Both penal and strategic hole designs can be easy or hard. Furthermore, most every hole has penal and strategic aspects, it is not a case of black and white. However, an architect subscribing to the strategic school will actively go out and look for several ways to play a hole. For example, instead of routing a hole across a massive ravine, where everyone has to carry it or else, he will try to route it along the ravine. If that is not possible, then even a strategic architect will occasionally build a penal hole. But it is not his preference.

The error of the penal architect is going over the top and the error of the strategic architect is being boring. A good penal hole will be spectacular the first time, a good strategic hole will be fun to play many times.

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Melvyn,

I was reading about a course that may be remodeled soon.  The article stated that it is being renovated to make it easier.......I know you are disappointed!

Frankly, things have changed a lot since the early days of golf, and its not so suprising that golf has as well.  I have written about this before, but IMHO, golf started when life was tougher, and the sport DID reflect that.  As life has evened out (economically, believe it or not right now) and we have more conveniences in life, golf reflects that, too, at least IHMO.  And, it probably should.  

Golf courses getting easier isn't new.  Its a long, gradual trend, and the revelation to early American designers that you could build a course with fewer hazards and still make it play well for good players was a significant milestone in gca.

Sean,

I think we are in basic agreement, but using slightly different word choices.  I guess, giving that we assessed our options and took different routes, we in the golfclubatlas.com strategic school, no?

TD,

While I agree with your post, and usually do more severe bunkers if there are only a few, I do believe that if the hazards get TOO severe, the strategy of the hole is limited, i.e., the golfer's only good option is to play defensively.  That is more true now with high spin balls, aerial game, etc. than it was in the Golden Age.  As I said somewhere recently, why challenge a fw hazard with a driver when you can hold the green with a 5 iron?  In many ways, the risk really isn't worth it, unless you are REALLY on your game.

Jeff

What is too severe of a hazard?  I am reminded of Tobacco Road's 11th with that huge pit (what is it, 20 feet deep?) the fairway turns around.  Landing in that pit is likely an X on the card even if you find it - I think this is a severe natural hazard.  However, that doesn't stop me from wanting to have a go at that green after a good drive if I think I have any decent chance to pull it off. Granted, part of that desire is that I don't like the alternative of the layup to the fairway which is a hard shot, but still...I guess I am dumb or spose I have a right.  In any case, even with the odds stacked against me for holding that green in two (it is very narrow from the long approach angle!) I want to have a go despite the risk of an X.  I think what you fail to realize is that most of us just play for fun even if there is a little bit riding on the game.  

Adam

That is part of my point.  The likes of Behr, Dr Mac etc have had their ideas carried out far more than the so-called penal school.  In other words, it is a myth that most modern courses are penal.                     

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I am with you in playing for fun.  That is one reason most of us use driver on nearly every hole - the long tee shot is thrilling, the layup is not.

Since you mention Mac, how severe are his hazards? Generally, not very and we consider his work great.  While there are no hard and fast rules as to hazard difficulty - it should vary across the course - I generally believe that MOST hazards ought to offer some chance of recoverability rather than automatically forcing you to play out backwards, as a 20' deep bunker would.  While I don't fail to realize most of us are in it for fun, I guess I am just not sure your take - i.e., aim for the hazards despite the X on the card is a universal one.

Is that dumbing it down for the majority of golfers who pull out the driver every time?  Or is it good implementation of strategic design?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I am with you in playing for fun.  That is one reason most of us use driver on nearly every hole - the long tee shot is thrilling, the layup is not.

Since you mention Mac, how severe are his hazards? Generally, not very and we consider his work great.  While there are no hard and fast rules as to hazard difficulty - it should vary across the course - I generally believe that MOST hazards ought to offer some chance of recoverability rather than automatically forcing you to play out backwards, as a 20' deep bunker would.  While I don't fail to realize most of us are in it for fun, I guess I am just not sure your take - i.e., aim for the hazards despite the X on the card is a universal one.

Is that dumbing it down for the majority of golfers who pull out the driver every time?  Or is it good implementation of strategic design?

Jeff

As you probably know, I am not a huge fan of Mac's famous hazards ala his California period because they are over-used and I strongly suspect some are there for visual beauty rather than strategic merit despite the claims of many that they create some sort of camouflage effect.  Perhaps this is why they aren't so penal, but the sheer number of them probably makes up for their relative lack of difficulty.  Though, I am sure they are plenty difficult for most handicap players.

I certainly wouldn't say Dr Mac dumbed down his courses with his style of bunkering in California.  Its an approach which I don't think is ideal, as I would rather see far less in the way of bunkers and more of an emphasis on natural and varied hazards, but if there are gonna be bunkers, I say make them count.  I am not interested in seeing low lip, shallow bunkers, because there shouldn't be enough bunkers on a course which can justify the spending of money on these poor things.

Ciao     

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
That is a good question about Ross and the top shot bunkers. 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. Mackenzie built a number of bunkers just off the tee over the years - why aren't they referred to as TSB? Mackenzie believed those bunkers presented excitement for the average golfer...and I agree with that idea.

Ulrich
Taylor had a very long design career, stretching from the late 1890s to the 30s. What about his architecture is penal in your opinion?

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich:

I think your definition is a bit too simple.  

EVERY hole offers unlimited options for play, i.e., I could choose to hit a putter off the tee, or I could choose to slice wildly into the weeds on the right.  Slightly more relevant, I could choose to hit a 3-iron off the tee for safety instead of a driver to avoid a bunker along the right edge; but does that make a hole strategic or penal?

As you say, nearly every hole offers a blend of the two ideas.  For example, the par-5 16th at Crystal Downs is sometimes dismissed as a poor hole because there are no "options" ... there are no fairway bunkers, you've just got to drive it in the fairway and hit a very good second to give yourself a reasonable approach.  But, having played the hole a lot of times, I know it is a lot easier in practice if you drive up the right side so your second will be ALONG the fairway instead of having to cut blindly over some rough at the crest of the hill.   But, some people are only going to be happy if there are five bunkers involved to present four distinct options; and at some point, as Sean alludes, that crosses the line from "strategic" to "penal" simply because there is so much trouble to negotiate.

At the end of the day, I agree with Mr. Crosby's take that the two schools are a poor way of framing what design is about.

[Rich Goodale]

Bob also had a very good and insightful line to the effect of, the penal school was and is a school with no alumni.

[Adam Clayman]

  In other words, it is a myth that most modern courses are penal.                     

Ciao

Sean,  I don't know where you've been playing, but that myth, is a firm reality. i.e. Every JN course is that way, save for maybe the New Course at Grand Cypress. But of the 200-300- the man has put his name on, the vast majority are dictated designs. As well as almost every other architect who has been building since the post WWII era began. I'm in a unique situation where I can go and play courses from both schools rather easily. However, the number of strategically designed courses is vastly out numbered by hundreds to one.

Bob Crosby just wrote a wonderful piece that focused on the terminology and specifically how the term Penal has been misused. I know I've misused it, heard others mis-use it and I suspect you just mis-used it in the quote above.

On a side note.
 It's interesting how trees have escaped the recent discussions of these schools. It turns out that trees are one of those counter intelligent features. Placed for difficulty reasons, but in reality, make playing the course easier.

[Sean_A]

  In other words, it is a myth that most modern courses are penal.                     

Ciao

Sean,  I don't know where you've been playing, but that myth, is a firm reality. i.e. Every JN course is that way, save for maybe the New Course at Grand Cypress. But of the 200-300- the man has put his name on, the vast majority are dictated designs. As well as almost every other architect who has been building since the post WWII era began. I'm in a unique situation where I can go and play courses from both schools rather easily. However, the number of strategically designed courses is vastly out numbered by hundreds to one.

Bob Crosby just wrote a wonderful piece that focused on the terminology and specifically how the term Penal has been misused. I know I've misused it, heard others mis-use it and I suspect you just mis-used it in the quote above.

On a side note.
 It's interesting how trees have escaped the recent discussions of these schools. It turns out that trees are one of those counter intelligent features. Placed for difficulty reasons, but in reality, make playing the course easier.

Adam

Just to be sure we are using the word penal in the same way (essentially bowling alley golf where shots missed wide are immediately punished or forced carries) please look at this thread about a Nicklaus course and point out the penal holes.  Perhaps you are using "dictated" and "penal" as interchangeable whereas I would not.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=post;msg=827216;topic=39467.0;sesc=5138443ed30646cf026b2b43e0bc8ea4

Ciao

[Mike Hendren]

Golf's a great game but has become a lousy business. If the likes of Behr, Jones, MacKenzie and others philosophy had been heeded golf might've been a better business. Not because it was made easy but because it is more fun requiring more thinking because the shots are not dictated. They are conceived creatively by each individual.

Adam, sadly I'm not sure anything that requires the American public to think is good business. 

Bogey

[Adam Clayman]

Michael, I once played with the former President of CBS films. He was certain the American public was much more savvy than most will give credit. I do know what you mean and I suspect, like that man's demographic target audience, he was right. Afterall, the non-thinker is likely living off the public dole, or, so uneducated that to market to them to purchase anything, would be a waste of time because they are busy reading GCA.com.  

Sean, No time to look at the old thread right now. I'm off to play a tree lined mess where almost every shot is dictated, covered in long rough to prevent any creative recovery. But I shall and respond later. At first blush, I do put this equitable architecture in the same boat as having the shots dictated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Where does strategic architecture merge with penal architecture ?

And, where do they go their seperate ways ?

Is the use of extended water flanking a hole penal ?

Would the 4th at Pac Dunes be considered penal ?

The 11th, 12th and 13th ?

Can a bunker become so strategic that it's considered penal ?

I've never seen a lengthy detailed explanation differentiating strategic from penal architecture

[Jeff Goldman]

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

Are you saying that NO ONE challenges the DA at PV when the hole is cut front right ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()