"The Course Doesn't Reward Good Shotmaking"

[Greg Tallman]

 links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.

  Anthony

Anthony that does not make sense to me.

  Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.

  Anthony

Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.

  Adrian,

 I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.

  Anthony

So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?

[Kyle Harris]

 links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.

  Anthony

Anthony that does not make sense to me.

  Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.

  Anthony

Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.

  Adrian,

 I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.

  Anthony

So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?

Depends on how long the player can keep taking advantage of the good breaks.

Shots don't exist in a vacuum and even over the short-run very few lucky bounces ever actually skew the results.

[John Kirk]

A couple comments, and thanks for a lively debate.

I contacted the friend who made the remark.  He will respond and chime in if he has a chance.

Let's say two players are 150 yards away from a green like the 8th green at Pacific Dunes, with a big gathering ridge on the right side.  The first player, a scratch player, flies an 8-iron 10 feet short of the hole and it spins to a stop 3 feet away.  Birdie.  The second player, an 18 handicap female player, takes 7-wood and aims well rightto avoid the pot bunker.  She strikes the ball solidly, and employs the gathering slope.  The ball trickles down to the green, 20 feet away, and she easily two putts for par.

Both are examples of good shotmaking.

80 replies, and not a single example of a golf hole which does not reward good shotmaking.  The statement is invalid.

However, the converse may be true, that some courses will reward poor shotmaking, which tends to favor the weaker player.  I'd suggest a great golf course provides a happy medium between the two extremes.  I'd also suggest, after playing Old Macdonald a few times, that the new course is an outstanding test, one that requires creativity and great shotmaking.  So I think my mystery friend is wrong, either way you look at it.  But you could get lucky over the course of a round, at a place like OM.

[Kyle Harris]

John:

A weaker or less-skilled player taking advantage of a lucky bounce demonstrates a skill. Furthermore, that player's opponent overcoming that player's luck demonstrates a skill. If one accepts the opponent as another challenge to overcome, why not just consider that opponent's good fortune as similar to your own misfortune? These are aspects of the game, that while seemingly unfair in the context of one shot, one hole and in rarer instances, one match, are almost certainly negated over subsequent shots, holes or matches by well-conceived golf holes.

As for why nobody has presented an example of a hole that does not reward good shotmaking; building such a hole is actually very difficult. The one I can remember is at a local family-owned/designed golf course. It's a 180 yard island green one-shot hole that is very narrow with rocks surrounding the island for stability in flooding. Shots are often at risk of hitting a rock and bounding into an unpredictable oblivion or merciful lie on the putting green. While a sufficiently large green or shorter length would mitigate the issue, the green simply does not contain enough wiggle room for the yardage required and laying up short of the creek too often represents the prudent play. Temptation cannot exist when luck reigns supreme.

[Greg Tallman]

 links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.

  Anthony

Anthony that does not make sense to me.

  Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.

  Anthony

Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.

  Adrian,

 I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.

  Anthony

So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?

Depends on how long the player can keep taking advantage of the good breaks.

Shots don't exist in a vacuum and even over the short-run very few lucky bounces ever actually skew the results.

Well stated...


damn it

[Bill_McBride]

A few months ago an acquaintance of mine played Old Macdonald.  He's a great player, a multiple club champion at Pumpkin Ridge who made it to the round of 16 at the U.S. Mid-Am a few years ago.  I asked if he liked Old Macdonald.  He replied, "No. The course doesn't reward good shotmaking."  I can't remember whether he shot a good score on a bad ball striking day, or a poor score though he was swinging well.  I believe it was the former.

If it was the former ("...shot a good score on a bad ball striking day..."), then what he was really saying was the course doesn't punish bad shots.  He wouldn't have been talking about the course not rewarding good shots if he scored okay while hitting poor shots.

Inn my experience good players having an off day will have poor shots wind up on the edge of a green where they can still make pars.  If I hit a really poor shot, double bogey is now an option.

[Dan King]

JMEvensky writes:
I don't think many people would play to their handicaps on courses set up for the PGA Tour--even those really strategic thinking 15 handicaps.

Is there someone arguing the opposite? I never said they weren't difficult, just they don't require much thought.

The presumption that Tour players don't think themselves around a golf course is just wrong.

Every course is setup identically. The width of the fairways are essentially the same. The length of the courses is close to the same. The bunker sand is identical in every bunker. The speed of the greens, exactly the same. Put a little inconsistency on the PGA Tour golf course and listen to the complaining. It used to be every week was the same except for the majors. Now, even the majors aren't terribly different than the regular tour stop. In general the PGA Tour player can hit the exact same shots at Pebble Beach as he hits at Harbor Town. No need for course knowledge or preparing any different week to week.

Why the bias against against guys who are really good at playing golf?They're not all bad people.

I think my bias is more against guys who are really good at PGA Tour golf. I don't ever think I said they were bad people. My issue is the PGA Tour has allowed the players to become too comfortable, making the game deadly dull and causing harm to the game because of the imitation factor.

 I think golf would be better with more bifurcation between the Tour players and everyone else, but that doesn't make them bad.

Cheers,
Dan King

Make them tee it up in the Open left-handed. Put 40,000 people out there watching them play from the other side. Let Nicklaus, Kite, Watson and Floyd get in a bunker and try to get out left-handed. Everybody would be giggling and laughing.
 --Mac O'Grady (on what he would do to spice up the game)

[Sean_A]

80 replies, and not a single example of a golf hole which does not reward good shotmaking.  The statement is invalid.

Wrong, I gave examples and know of many more.  I dare say you do as well if you give it some thought.

Ciao  

[Tom_Doak]

Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern.  Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.

Don't have time to read all 75 posts here, but Ed's take on it is my first reaction.

Some very good players believe that holes should call for a fade or a draw, and that anything less should be punished.  They hate it if you hit a poor tee shot and sometimes still can have an easy-ish approach, and if that's a flaw, then Old Macdonald is flawed.  I have a harder time believing that shotmaking is not rewarded on the approach shots there, unless he is just one of those players who counts Greens in Regulation and thinks that figure should relate precisely to the total score.

However, you also have to take the wind into account.  The majority of the time, all of the courses in Bandon give plenty of advantage to the shotmaker because they allow you to use the wind to your benefit.

[Scott Warren]

Sean,

Have to disagree about Deal's 4th.  Of course long is a bad place downwind (it isn't good in any circumstances I can imagine) to be but there is the option of playing a shot so that your miss is short right, which gives a chance of getting up and down.  There's no miss short at Rye on the 7th.  It's an impossible hole downwind.

I agree.

Next time you guys visit Deal, have a look on the 4th at just how much short grass there is short left of the green (blocked from view at the tee by the dune) that kicks the ball onto the green and to the right - ie. towards safety.

Sean is right that the hole would be improved were more of the hill at the back maintained as fairway though, the slope of the hill and speed of the ground coupled with how they maintain the area generally means a shot that runs long picks up just enough speed to roll just into the rough, leaving you with a downhill chip to a target above you out of 4-6 inch rough, which isn't really in keeping with the general nature of the course (this problem also exists to a lesser extent at the 2nd).

[Greg Tallman]

Is it fair if a course consistently allows a very poorly struck shot to end up alongside a rather well played shot that is just short of perfect?

To be perfectly honest this is where I take some exception to today's en vogue design concepts.

Kyle refutes that rather well but there are some designs that could allow that to happen more ofetn than not. Take it from a rather loose iron player... I seek those courses out!!!!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Have to disagree about Deal's 4th.  Of course long is a bad place downwind (it isn't good in any circumstances I can imagine) to be but there is the option of playing a shot so that your miss is short right, which gives a chance of getting up and down.  There's no miss short at Rye on the 7th.  It's an impossible hole downwind.

I agree.

Next time you guys visit Deal, have a look on the 4th at just how much short grass there is short left of the green (blocked from view at the tee by the dune) that kicks the ball onto the green and to the right - ie. towards safety.

Sean is right that the hole would be improved were more of the hill at the back maintained as fairway though, the slope of the hill and speed of the ground coupled with how they maintain the area generally means a shot that runs long picks up just enough speed to roll just into the rough, leaving you with a downhill chip to a target above you out of 4-6 inch rough, which isn't really in keeping with the general nature of the course (this problem also exists to a lesser extent at the 2nd).

Hang on Scott, so you are saying its good architecture to have as the primary(?) landing area on a par 3 when downwind a bit of blind land beyond serious rough which one hopes to then use as a kicker right to the green?  I know the shot is possible because the area in question is more or less on line with the footpath.  This is an excellent shot to pull off; the area is downhill and runs to a green moving away from the tee. 

Canary - so you want to hit a tee shot short right and hope it kicks up the slope?  From memory, this is quite a small landing area as it is somewhat shelved above softer, marshy land.  I spose a hooking shot which is then very controlled once it climbs onto the green does the job, but I would call that a great and low percentage shot. 

As Mark stated, the hole would be much better served if the rough to the rear were eliminated quite a way up the dune.  This at least creates a safe play in windy weather which doesn't require mucking with rough front right, left or to the rear.   Those bounce up shots can be left for the brave with the bail out long.  I don't think the 4th is an onerous example of the type we are talking about, but I mentioned it because the fix to make it more reasonable is very simple.  In the case of Rye's 7th I am not sure there is a way to make it that much more playable without seriously altering the hole.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Sean:

Hang on Scott, so you are saying its good architecture to have as the primary(?) landing area on a par 3 when downwind a bit of blind land beyond serious rough which one hopes to then use as a kicker right to the green?  I know the shot is possible because the area in question is more or less on line with the footpath.  This is an excellent shot to pull off; the area is downhill and runs to a green moving away from the tee.  

The green doesn't move away from the tee at all. It's nigh on flat, and the back few feet will encourage a trickling ball to continue on its merry way as does the front in reverse, but the middle 90% of the green is effectively flat, tending towards tilting at the tee.

Downwind you have good room right of the green where a saucer will gather the ball about 10ft off the putting surface.
Or you can aim to land in the generous area over the path (see below) and bounce on.
Or you can land it at the front of the green and hope it hops up. The major rough ends about 25ft short of the front of the green.

That is a lot of options for a shot that, downwind, most golfers are unlikely to be tackling with anything more than an 8 or 9iron.

Ran's pic is from 2004, but not a lot has changed:


EDIT - What's interesting is that the GoogleMaps aerial seems to show much more room at the left and back being maintained as fairway whenever it was that this was taken:

[Sean_A]

Scott

From memory, I think the entire green moves frontish right to rearish left - very subtlely, but enough to make a difference.  The land short of the green has a quickish rise to the front.  Your pic seems to show this - no?  I think this one does as well.

However, its neither here nor there as to my point.  I think the hole would be more accomodating with more room to the rear.  We can debate forever if that means the hole is better, but that isn't really what this exercise is about.  I raised this hole as questionable design when there is a decent tail wind.  In fact, the 8th too has its problems with a tail wind or a cross wind.  Suffice it say that I don't think the one-shotters are Deal's strength.

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Fair enough, Sean. I agree wholeheartedly about 7 at Rye, I just don't think 4 at Deal belongs in the same discussion (though I agree more room to the rear would improve it). The green does photograph as though it runs to the back, but from putting on it over the course of two years I can assure you that the green in general does not break in that direction.

8 is much less forgiving downwind than 4, but there is still an area, hidden by the shortest trap, where you can land one if that's the wind, and as with 4, in that wind (the rarest on the course) you're going in with an 8 ir 9i, even a wedge, so precision should be rewarded.

But it still isn't a great hole, just like 8 at St E and if you're tarring them, 10 at Dornoch is much the same.

[Sean_A]

Scott

I shall have to bow to your intimate knowledge of the course because my memory is as faulty as they come.  I also agree that Deal's holes are not as severe as Rye's 7th, but both could use more room to accomodate wind.  That may mean they are less challenging, but thats okay in my book.

Ciao

[Anthony Gray]

 links courses such as Old Mac put a premium on shot making because there are more options to make a shot.Many different ways to work the ball compared to an inland course.

  Anthony

Anthony that does not make sense to me.

  Liks courses play fast and firm usually.So you can take high or take it low ect.More than one way to play the shots thus putting a premium on shot making.

  Anthony

Anthony I still dont know if premium is the right word, just because of the options. Thinking outside the square if you take a punchbowl green, does that reward good shotmaking because here are options? No. In all honesty a punchbowl green does not reward a good shot at all it is the total opposite, it rewards slighty errant one. I think kick backs, back stops are great for the higher handicapper, not sure the scratchman gets the same juice though.

  Adrian,

 I agree with the punch bowl and love punch bowls because of my high handy cap.Because shot selection on links courses is more varied in puts a prium on pulling off the shot you selected.When you missed the direct shot you say you should have bumped it in.

  Anthony

So our favorite courses are those that allow a hooribly struck shot to end as good or better than a nearly perfect strike? Is that good architecture or just marketing?

 Its how I roll.When I skull one I want it to roll all the way to the green than getting stoped by a soft fairway or some bunker fronting the green

[Scott Warren]

both could use more room to accomodate wind.  That may mean they are less challenging, but thats okay in my book.

That I can agree completely with. 8 has been softened somewhat - back bunkers were taken out a few years back.

I'm not sure some extra landing room would make either hole "less challenging", but it would open up more options, which is what it's all about.

A narrow run-up area short of the 8th green through which to bounce your approach would allow better players to identify themselves, while poorer strikers would have some hope and, in finding themselves bunkered, would be less aggrieved, I imagine.

And on the 4th, those with a great short game who ventured long would be able to use those skills to save par, while others struggled to a 4 or 5. As it is it's a crapshoot with not much to do with skill.

[Adam Clayman]

Is it fair if a course consistently allows a very poorly struck shot to end up alongside a rather well played shot that is just short of perfect?

To be perfectly honest this is where I take some exception to today's en vogue design concepts.

Kyle refutes that rather well but there are some designs that could allow that to happen more ofetn than not. Take it from a rather loose iron player... I seek those courses out!!!!

Greg,
Did you really ask if it's fair?

It sounds like you have a solitary definition of what a perfectly struck shot is, and/or what it's result should be, if one achieves, this definition.

The course is the medium for the sport, a sport that is much more multi-faceted than can, or should be, defined by only one narrow aspect, ball striking. For the most of us, it's a game of misses.

Dr. Mackenzie's philosophy comes to mind as what I infer as the "en vogue" concepts you are taking issues with. Is that right? A person should not be able to get around a golf course with only a putter?

[Kyle Harris]

Is it fair if a course consistently allows a very poorly struck shot to end up alongside a rather well played shot that is just short of perfect?

To be perfectly honest this is where I take some exception to today's en vogue design concepts.

Kyle refutes that rather well but there are some designs that could allow that to happen more ofetn than not. Take it from a rather loose iron player... I seek those courses out!!!!

Greg,
Did you really ask if it's fair?

It sounds like you have a solitary definition of what a perfectly struck shot is, and/or what it's result should be, if one achieves, this definition.

The course is the medium for the sport, a sport that is much more multi-faceted than can, or should be, defined by only one narrow aspect, ball striking. For the most of us, it's a game of misses.

Dr. Mackenzie's philosophy comes to mind as what I infer as the "en vogue" concepts you are taking issues with. Is that right? A person should not be able to get around a golf course with only a putter?

Another key point in Greg's idea is that of "consistency."

For the golf course to consistently allow a bad shot to have the opportunity to score as well as a good one, a manner of consistency is required on the part of the golfer.

Consistency IS a skill. A golfer able to consistently strike a ball in the same manner while getting the ball to the necessary area or into the hole is demonstrating a significant amount of skill and should be a worthy opponent for many, regardless of the design.

[Doug Siebert]

I agree with John's statement in his opening post...it's an invalid statement. At some level it must reward shotmaking...did the ball ever go in the hole?

But your objection to keeping score unless you're a 5 or lower is mindblowing...how else would someone know if they've improved a shot or two on average? Or how about the addictive nature of trying break 100 or 90 for the first time?

Jim,

The mindset has so permeated the psyche of the American golfer that we have special sections--in every issue--of Golf Digest that are dedicated to breaking 100, 90, 80.  I understand the appeal.  Doesn't mean I agree with or eve like it. 

When's the last time you read an article on, "how to beat the guy that drives it longer than you" or, "how to play against a good putter"?  I am not saying that we should never keep score, heavens no.  But making it the focus of the game to the extent that it drives slow play, straight forward architecture, expectations of perfect conditioning?  I think that's the Golf Channel syndrome and part of golf's problem moving forward. 

Golf needs to be more fun, less penal, less about a number and more about getting outside and spending time with friends.  Play against friends, not par.

Its because those articles you suggest would be boring.  If you want to beat someone who has a specific advantage over you, you must have a specific advantage over them.  If your opponent outdrives you by 50 yards, you better hit it a lot straighter, putt a lot better, or hit your irons a lot more accurately.  Or be a little bit better than him at all those things.  Ditto for someone who is a much better putter, much more accurate than you (or to put it differently, you are much more wild than he is) and so on.

The articles for breaking 80/90/100 are kind of silly, but if you generalize about the kind of guys who shoot in the 80s but can't overcome that mental barrier into the 70s, you know most of the time it is because of shortcomings when they are on or around the green.  For guys who can't break 100, you can pretty much assume it has to do with lack of consistency of contact.  So at least you have a starting point for suggestions....though doing them as monthly articles is kind of silly, especially if they are still doing them.  I swear I remember those from when my dad was getting the mag back in the 80s!  I think all topics would have been covered by now!

[Doug Siebert]

As for why nobody has presented an example of a hole that does not reward good shotmaking; building such a hole is actually very difficult. The one I can remember is at a local family-owned/designed golf course. It's a 180 yard island green one-shot hole that is very narrow with rocks surrounding the island for stability in flooding. Shots are often at risk of hitting a rock and bounding into an unpredictable oblivion or merciful lie on the putting green. While a sufficiently large green or shorter length would mitigate the issue, the green simply does not contain enough wiggle room for the yardage required and laying up short of the creek too often represents the prudent play. Temptation cannot exist when luck reigns supreme.

It doesn't sound to me like luck reigns supreme on that hole, it just demands a higher level of consistency of contact, accuracy and distance control than would be reasonably expected from golfers above a single digit handicap.  Such holes are bad because they don't offer a way around the difficulty.  If you have a creek or small pond in front of a green its a reasonable challenge, and golfers who think its too tough can layup short or perhaps use some bailout pin high or beyond to one side or the other.

An island green isn't much different than having a really tight hole with OB down the right and water left (which is all too typical as the finishing hole these days, though usually it is wide enough taking the rough into account)  Or a hole that's tree lined on both sides to the extent where hitting your ball in the trees will result in a lost ball.  Sure, there is the occasional ball that hits a tree and kicks back into the fairway, but just like the bounce off those rocks onto the green, that luck is from a shot that was almost good enough but not quite.  So while its luck its not really undeserved luck except in the very very rare case where you'd hit a rock and bounce it a few inches from the cup  It'd be different if the lake had rocks jutting out all over so you could hit an absolutely terrible shot and miss the green by 20-30 yards and hit a rock that might ping you back onto the green.  But I've never seen that, just like I've never seen a ball hit a tree 20 yards deep in a stand of thick trees and carom all the way back to the fairway.

[Sean_A]

Ben, again, i believe you are misreading his concern.  Based on what John has posted, his friend thought his score was better than his shotmaking deserved and felt the failure to punish his mistakes was a strike against the course.

Ed

So how do we get around this divide without resorting to different courses for different class players?  I have always felt the option and power of recovery are marks of a distinguished course.  One of the few of this type we see used for the big boy and hacker alike is TOC.  Its a given that par is an easy score (like on virtually all courses the pros play on) to achieve on a great many days.  Wind, firmness, TOUGH hole locations and a bit more rough than many would like to see here and there are the great equalizers.  Unfortunately (and as I suspect at Old Mac), two of these features can't be produced by flipping a switch.  Does this mean TOC is no longer a viable championship venue or that Old Mac can't properly challenge good amateurs?  That is a question I can't answer because I am not good enough, it does seem to me that if its just a numbers game, we can change the numbers.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - I have said for years now I am not sure it is possible to build a course today that the pro's will like and the average guy can play. We can have forward tees, but we can't roll back oceans or flatten greens or create run offs at a flick. Perhaps we should just accept it like a bald head.

The Old Course kind of fits this 'good for everyone' but many other links courses fit better I think. What a lot of good players dont like about TOC are things like the 12th green because it is beyond the realms of great shot making, the if and the but of the ridges make it impossible to properly judge, good shots can end up so so.

Personally I hated some of Chambers Bay and IMO that is a fad that will die quickly, I hate seeing the golf ball bounce around from cushion to cushion.....bring back the windmill!

[Kyle Harris]

As for why nobody has presented an example of a hole that does not reward good shotmaking; building such a hole is actually very difficult. The one I can remember is at a local family-owned/designed golf course. It's a 180 yard island green one-shot hole that is very narrow with rocks surrounding the island for stability in flooding. Shots are often at risk of hitting a rock and bounding into an unpredictable oblivion or merciful lie on the putting green. While a sufficiently large green or shorter length would mitigate the issue, the green simply does not contain enough wiggle room for the yardage required and laying up short of the creek too often represents the prudent play. Temptation cannot exist when luck reigns supreme.

It doesn't sound to me like luck reigns supreme on that hole, it just demands a higher level of consistency of contact, accuracy and distance control than would be reasonably expected from golfers above a single digit handicap.  Such holes are bad because they don't offer a way around the difficulty.  If you have a creek or small pond in front of a green its a reasonable challenge, and golfers who think its too tough can layup short or perhaps use some bailout pin high or beyond to one side or the other.

An island green isn't much different than having a really tight hole with OB down the right and water left (which is all too typical as the finishing hole these days, though usually it is wide enough taking the rough into account)  Or a hole that's tree lined on both sides to the extent where hitting your ball in the trees will result in a lost ball.  Sure, there is the occasional ball that hits a tree and kicks back into the fairway, but just like the bounce off those rocks onto the green, that luck is from a shot that was almost good enough but not quite.  So while its luck its not really undeserved luck except in the very very rare case where you'd hit a rock and bounce it a few inches from the cup  It'd be different if the lake had rocks jutting out all over so you could hit an absolutely terrible shot and miss the green by 20-30 yards and hit a rock that might ping you back onto the green.  But I've never seen that, just like I've never seen a ball hit a tree 20 yards deep in a stand of thick trees and carom all the way back to the fairway.

I didn't do a terribly good job of explaining the hole. Even the dead center of the putting green is no more than 10 steps away from the boulders and rocks on either side. Demanding that even the best players consider an alternate strategy before attempting the green. It's a case of the shot demand not matching the yardage.