next »

[Giles Payne]

Matt Ward has started an excellent post on the subject of working the ball and it got me thinking.......

There are a number of skills that players may need during a round - a list could include (although I am sure that I will miss a few - please add) strategy, accuracy, length, control (trajectory and curve), short game, imagination, putting, mental strength.

I am sure that the architects will say that they will try to include features in their deigns that will lead to all the relevant skills being tested but which ones do you think should be considered more important and which ones less? Do you think that the modern game is in danger of promoting some skills - eg length - at the expense of others?

I would be really interested to hear your views as a newbie (appologies if this has been covered ad infinitum before)

[Jim Sullivan]

Giles,

If an architect can create a course that challenges the mental strength of each player they will have done well...IMO.

I think the best holes force me to make decisions and mental strength helps analyze the risk/reward of a shot.

By the way, it's a mistake to suggest Matt started an excellent thread because he might come on here and tell you why...

[Jason Topp]

Giles:

I think this is a great topic.  It is certainly an area where you can differentiate between modern architects.  Nicklaus demands solid accurate iron shots to a greater degree than most other architects.  Doak/Coore demand creative short games to a greater extent.

I think courses should vary in their skill requirements.  It creates much more variety from course to course.

[Mac Plumart]

GREAT TOPIC!!!!!

I think that great architects need to put every aspect of someones game to the test in their course design.  Challenge all golfers to hit a draw, fade, power shots, finesse shots, etc.  Yes, I said ALL golfers.  Why?  For a player to get better they need to see the need to have all shots in their bag.  If they can't execute the shot that is called for they need to do three things...#1--Give it a try to see if they can do it, #2--Or realize they can't and find another way to score their best score on a given hole, #3--make a mental note of their short-comings and practice to get better.

If the architect doesn't challenge all players from all tee locations, there is a chance the golfer in question will not get better as they will not be pushed to get better.

Some golfers might upset and think a course is unfair if they can't hit the obvious shot...but they need to realize the fact that they need to practice or be saavy on the course and find another way to the hole.

[Mac Plumart]

To add to my last comment...It think this is why I have liked the two Pete Dye courses I have played thus far.  He makes you hit every shot in the bag to "beat" the course, but offers you a way out if you can't.  Man, I wish I was at home right now so I could post pictures.  

But take 13 at Kiawah Ocean.  That river/marsh area runs right into the middle of the fairway.  You can launch a booming fading driver way down the fairway and try to set up a small iron or wedge into the green, but you will challenge the water.  OR you can hit a tiny driver or long iron off the tee with no fade on it and be safe on the fairway, but with a longer iron to the green with bunkers on the left and water on the right.  Strategy/risk reward, but either player can make par or better on the hole if they execute and they don't have to hit a shot they aren't comfortable with...but it makes their second short easier or harder depending on their tee shot choice.

The same can be said of 2 at the PDGC of WV.  Except instead of a fade it is draw off the tee.

I am sorry for not having pictures handy...but I think pictures are important here...so I'm includings links to pictures on my site...I am sorry for doing this but I think it adds value.

Here's a link to Kiawah 13...scroll about 1/2 way down to see two pictures of the hole.

http://www.mrpgolf.com/kiawah_ocean.html

And here the PDGC of WV #2...

http://www.mrpgolf.com/PDGC_WV.html

Scroll down just a bit.

Sorry for making you link, but I think it illustrates a solid piont.  

[Jim Sullivan]

Mac,

I can only hit the ball 240 yards with the driver - 190 with a 3 iron - 145 with a 7 iron - 100 with a PW - but can't make it curve one inch no matter how hard I try. I can control my distance to the yard with every club in the bag and I putt well...Is there a course that I couldn't break par on?

I've played a few of the top 10 and I could break par on them...

I think the only place I get in trouble is if the architect can firgure out a way to make me try to hit a shot that curves...

[Giles Payne]

Mac

I think that the two holes you have highlighted make terrific examples of the risk and reward dilemma - I think that this is what makes a good test of strategy and keeps players honest about their games. Interestingly, neither hole is too long but the rewards increase in line with the risks taken.

When I was younger I always wanted to play longer courses (and they actually suit my game better) but I am more and more drawn to interesting courses. I had a great time a few years ago at a small Scottish Course called Kilspindie. (http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/productdetails.asp?id=379)
Very short but great fun and a good test of golf when the wind blows.

I like it when a golf course tests you mentally as well as physically - unfortunately the red mist still descends and I take on shots which are most likely to end in disaster! I still have plenty to learn and it seems that the more you learn the more there is to learn.

[Mac Plumart]

Giles...great points.  Quality courses are good test of strategy.  And that ties in with Jim's comments...

Jim...brilliant!  However, for starters you sound like a much better golfer than me...I am an 11 handicap playing wildly erratic at the current moment.  Regardless, you are not a bomber but you score well.  You figured out your game and it sounds like you can analyze what the architect gives you versus what you can do and make good decisions the entire round through.  Isn't that what golf is all about?!?  I think that is awesome.  If an architect gives you a juicy risk/reward shot that requires a curve the ball...it sounds like you would forgo the reward and not take the risk and that works for you.  Once again, that is great decision making on a golf course.  A lot of guys I know don't want to admit their limitations and they would go for the risky shot, which might blow their score up.  A good architect will tempt players to play outside of their abiliites sometimes, right?  You know yours.  Awesome!!!

[Jim Sullivan]

Mac,

I was describing a hypothetical golfer, definitely not me.

To your earlier point, I don't think it's feasible to ask every golfer to hit every shot (or even be tempted to hit every shot)...because golfers are so extremely varied - physically and mentally.

If they have enough variety out there such that every golfer feels compelled, a couple times per round, to go outside their own box it should be a fun course.

[Jud Tigerman]

I think one of the most interesting things an archy can do is to have several 1/2 par holes...i.e. 250 year par 3, 330 yard par 4, 460 yard par 4 etc...I'm amazed at how upset people get over these holes...one of the least interesting things GCA's, and club's looking to get majors, can do is require a long straight tee shot with no other option on virtually every hole.  I'm also amazed at how many really good players think so highly of courses that do this....I guess it feeds their ego or subconscious under the "this really seperates the men from the boys" category...