Shot values

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff B...

excellent post.  Very well thought out.  I am saving that one in the files.

Thanks.

[TEPaul]

Jeffrey:


Where did all those additional categories in your post #26 come from?

[Garland Bayley]

Jeff B...

excellent post.  Very well thought out.  I am saving that one in the files.

Thanks.

Well except for that proportionality thing. The perfect course for perfect proportionality scores is a totally flat course with no hazards.
Golf is fun when you turn proportionality on its head. My buddy missed a shot badly at Tetherow, and it went in the hole. You never heard such whooping and hollering! No wonder that member decided not to play with us.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
The more interesting school is easy birdie, easier bogey.
AKA half-par holes"



Garland:

The so-called half-par holes or holes that seem to fall into that middle distance between the three par type holes is a most interesting subject and one that was fascinatingly developed by George Thomas in his most interesting chapter that was essentially and somewhat incongruously on his proposal for half-strokes for putts.

[TEPaul]

"According to Golf Digest:

Shot Values -- How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

Pine Valley had the highest shot value score in their latest ranking wiht 9.16 with Shinnecock second with 8.75 (quite a big gap between one and two).  Oakmont had 8.70, Winged Foot (West) had 8.60, Merion had 8.56 and Pebble had 8.49."





That sort of uber mathematical analysis sounds to me like it is right out of the mind and right off the pen of Joshua Crane!

Where is Max Behr? We need him again. We need him now!

[Garland Bayley]

"According to Golf Digest:

Shot Values -- How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

Pine Valley had the highest shot value score in their latest ranking wiht 9.16 with Shinnecock second with 8.75 (quite a big gap between one and two).  Oakmont had 8.70, Winged Foot (West) had 8.60, Merion had 8.56 and Pebble had 8.49."





That sort of uber mathematical analysis sounds to me like it is right out of the mind and right off the pen of Joshua Crane!

Where is Max Behr? We need him again. We need him now!

UMMMMMMMMMm Tom,

Do the names Brad Klein and Tom Doak ring a bell with you.
I am painting my house with Behr paint, but I don't need Maxie boy in this day and age.

[TEPaul]

Garland:

Perhaps you don't, but in my opinion, golf and golf architecture desperately needs Maxie Behr in its future.

In my opinion, Behr got just about all of what he wrote completely right. What he got wrong, I feel, is his faith in golfers generally to see the light. On that I think he totally over-estimated the intelligence or perhaps the sentimentalies or even the emotions of the golfer generally, and it's a damn shame because that facet was just one of many of his premises in his "a priori" reasoning to come to his final conclusion that was losely known as "Permanent Architecture."

[Garland Bayley]

Tom,

So you are saying that you don't think Tom Doak, Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, Kyle Philips, Pat Ruddy, Ian Andrew, Mike Weir, David Kidd, Graham Marsh, Martin Hawtree, Steve Smyers, et. al. are not carrying the torch high enough and well enough?

[JNC Lyon]

I think "shot values" is a garbage term that no one really understands.  It attempts to make a quantitative measurement of glory, strategy, and fun in golf courses.  These are things that cannot be measured.  Additionally, the term assumes that every golfer experiences the same shots and places them value on them at every golf course.  This assumption, as most of us should know, is erroneous.

The term is a terrible.  I never use it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeffrey:


Where did all those additional categories in your post #26 come from?

TePaul,

As noted at the end of the post, mostly from Tour Pros, club pros, and top amateur players.  Of course, the words are mine in trying to sum up some vague general feelings the sort of expressed.........it is a hard subject to define exactly, but those thoughts are 90% aimed at the feelings of better players, with only a nod to lesser players in some categories.

Now a question for you....

Can architecture really be permanent?  Nature changes a course, and tech, fads, etc. also work to change them.

[Mac Plumart]

JNC...read Jeff's post #26.  The term maybe be vague, but he does a hell of a job explaining it and detailing it.  Now, and this might be the most important aspect of it, players of the game don't need to understand that topic or the term...but if the architect does and designs the course to maximize those principals, then the player might "feel" it.  Just an idea/thought.

Jeff...can architecture be permenant?  Nope.  Nature changes it all the time.  Even the great Max Behr had nature alter one of his permenant courses.  I am sure Tom P. has more of the details than I do.  However, perhaps if you apply Mr. Behr basic ideas you'll have a course that is less maintenance heavy and more lasting that others.  Again, just some early morning thoughts.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
So you are saying that you don't think Tom Doak, Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, Gil Hanse, Mike DeVries, Kyle Philips, Pat Ruddy, Ian Andrew, Mike Weir, David Kidd, Graham Marsh, Martin Hawtree, Steve Smyers, et. al. are not carrying the torch high enough and well enough?"





UMMMMMMMMMH, Garland:

No, that is not what I'm saying.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TePaul,

A lot of people get frustrated trying to get others to "see the light" in any field and in life itself.

I once had a friend arguing that his favorite band (a one hit wonder I can't recall) was better than the Beatles, despite the disparity in popularity.  At some point, we all have to wonder if the elitist few or the masses really have it right, don't we? Even if the elitist few DO have it right, its a battle that will never be won and the masses will win out, no?

[JESII]

Win out what, Jeff?

[JESII]

What is your favorite hole or course of your own? Why?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Win out what, Jeff?

I guess in setting general trends.  And tastes.

[JR Potts]

Just got me thinking - isn't there a certain level of ability that one must have to really talk about shot values?  I don't think a 18+ handicapper has any standing to assess shot values when they are likely just trying to hit the ball in the center of the clubface.

[Bart Bradley]

I am not much for the term "shot value"...

But if asked, I would think that "shot value" goes back to MacKenzie's idea of the "spirit of adventure".  For example, not all tee shots are as thrilling or fun or enticing as others.  Wouldn't a 250 yd tee ball that splits the middle be more thrilling if it carried over a natural mountain stream against a background of a beautiful mountain peak than the same shot to a flat fairway in the middle of an old cornfield?

I could be wrong ...

Bart

[Garland Bayley]

Just got me thinking - isn't there a certain level of ability that one must have to really talk about shot values?  I don't think a 18+ handicapper has any standing to assess shot values when they are likely just trying to hit the ball in the center of the clubface.

I got news for you. 18+ handicappers can hit the ball in the center of the clubface. There are a lot of golfers with half the handicap that seldom hit the ball in the center of the clubface. I had a 10 suggest I play through late one evening, because after watching my play behind him, he felt I was too skilled to play with him. I suggested we join up and had a great time finishing the round together. I marveled at how he could get such good results with such poor contact(they were directionally consistent). He marveled at how solidly I struck the ball.

[Jim Briggs]

I'm a newbie here (and a bogey golfer)...Ran failed to mention that there was a minimum handicap requirment for participation here.

As my interest and appreciation of CGA has begun to increase, with much thanks to this site, I find myself very much able to picture/consider what the architect/hole is asking of me.  My ability to execute may not be the same as lower handicaps, but I'm not sure my success rate in execution should make me or any other 18+ less able to articulate on aspects of GCA.

[JESII]

Garland,

That sounds like the teaching pro who watched me make a few swings and then commented "I'll bet your hands are the best part of your game". Didn't quite know what to make of it...sort of like..."man, you hit the ball solid for someone who stinks so bad..."

[Brent Hutto]

Jim (and Garland),

I was at a short-game clinic once and we were playing little fiddly short-sided chip and pitch shots around a practice green. At one point, one of the teachers took me aside and said "Brent, I'll bet your wife appreciates your nice soft hands and gentle touch. But for right now you need to GET THE DAMN BALL TO THE HOLE". I guess he was getting tired of watching me leave 20-foot shots 10 feet short or something...

[Garland Bayley]

I tried out for an AAU Volleyball team once. They really appreciated my ability as a blocker, and some as a spiker, but as far as the rest of my game is concerned, I knew I was toast when I overheard one of the coaches refer to me as iron fingers.

Do I have a golf short game? I'll leave that for you to decide.

[JR Potts]

I got news for you. 18+ handicappers can hit the ball in the center of the clubface. There are a lot of golfers with half the handicap that seldom hit the ball in the center of the clubface. I had a 10 suggest I play through late one evening, because after watching my play behind him, he felt I was too skilled to play with him. I suggested we join up and had a great time finishing the round together. I marveled at how he could get such good results with such poor contact(they were directionally consistent). He marveled at how solidly I struck the ball.

Garland, I know.  I didn't want to put down a handicap but I did just to get this reaction.  I'm sorry, I'm a sucker for controversy.

My point though is well taken - when talking about shot values - on major championship golf courses and courses designed to host majors, what does the average golfer know about shot values?  How can they even begin to judge it?  I think they can't...as for the rest of the categories and even the course, fine....but shot values?  Shot  values?  We're talking about shot values!  Shot Values! [Said in his best Allen Iverson voice]

[JESII]

Ryan,

Can you make a good hole that doesn't require some degree of good shots? Not Tiger's good shots, but the clientelle playing your course. Doesn't a good course rely on good holes and doesn't a good hole rely on good shots?