[Mark_Huxford]

Bobby Jones once wrote:

There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one. One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment upon the bad shot, to place it's perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble demanding the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering; the other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the drive.

What hole would you put forward for the best example of the second type of hole? What holes are the posterchildren for the strategic school?

I have chosen the Leven hole at NGLA. What are some others?

[Shane Gurnett]

Mark

What about that par 5 at Crooked Stick where Daly won the PGA in '91 ( I think it was the 14th- the dog leg left around the swamp?) The further you can hit it, and therefore the more you can cut the corner of the dogleg, the shorter the iron in (Daley was hitting wedge as I recall).

Maybe this hole meets both parts of the definition- penal and rewarding?

[ChipOat]

Now you guys have touched a HUGE nerve.  I am a big fan of par 4's and 5's that reward positioning near danger in order to best set up the next shot.  However, I'm afraid that holes that reward length in any way other than a shorter club don't do it for me - having extra length is enough of an advantage, already.  I prefer holes where the greens are angled and/or protected such that the best position to attack them is from a relatively precarious place that required a darn good shot (but not a LONG shot) to get there in the first place.  

First, the "don't like as much as pure strategic":

First, my problem with most "Cape" holes is that the longer hitter, after having "bitten off" more on the drive than the shorter hitter, usually has a more straight-forward approach angle to the green - and with a shorter club, as well!  It seemes to me that the true "strategic Cape" would leave the SHORTER player with the easier angle/longer club and the longer hitter with the more challenging angle to compensate for the shorter club to be used.

Other "great holes" where the longer hitter has an easier angle AND a shorter club: NGLA #'s 2,3,12,14 (Cape),17,18;
PVGC #'s 1,4,6 (Cape),13,16; Merion #'s 1 and 10. As to #17 (Levin) at National, there's no more beautiful vista in all of golf (even at Cypress) and, like all of NGLA, playing the hole is a marvelous experience.  However, the shorter hitter is simply unable to accomplish the strategic objective - there's too much wasteland to carry.

Second, I'm not enamored with holes where being very near trouble is LESS desirable than the center of the fairway:  Most holes are like this in order to be "fair" (and they're easier to design) but, for example, wouldn't #1 at Pine Valley be neat if the green was easier to attack from near the right bunkers than from dead center?  Yes, the hole is already hard enough but you get the point.  

Can you imagine the bitching and moaning if somebody ever built a course where the center of the fairway was never as desirable as near the left/right trouble??  It might be too much of a good thing, anyway - too subtle, too "tricky", etc.

Now the "like most" part:

Merion is loaded with holes that reward the risky play over the safe "bail out" including: #2 (play the entire hole up the right side near the OB for the best approach), #4 (aim at the right side bunker for the flattest 2nd shot - the center of the fairway is squirrelly), #5 (play along the left creek for the best angle into the green and the flattest stance), #7 (drive towards the OB for the best angle into the green), #14 (playing away from the OB leaves a longer, tougher shot), #15 (my kind of Cape plus you have to aim towards the left OB to get the best angle) and #18 (left off the tee towards the rough/OB leaves a better angle).

National has its share of strategic holes including: #7 - MacDonald's Road Hole (best 2nd shot angle is, arguably, from as far right towards the bunkers as you dare), #8 (green opens up the further right you drive it and #15 (the green opens up better from near the left bunker and/or rough).

Even the ultimate penal course, Pine Valley, has a couple of places where aiming dead center is less desirable for every golfer - not just the longer hitter.  For example, #11 plays better up the right side near the trees and bunkers, I think.  However, the second shot on #15 is the ultimate - if you don't aim at the left trees, your ball will be in the right trees when it stops rolling.

Finally, what better strategic shots than the drive and 2nd at Pebble #18?  The closer you are to the ocean on the left after each, the easier your next shot becomes.  Sort of like #2 at Merion in reverse (and a more spectacular setting, to be sure).

There's other kinds of great par 4's and 5's - Pine Valley and Shinnecock (to name 2 of many) are filled with them.  But subtle strategic holes that require precision and thought regardless of wind and the players' length - that's a good thread for this site.

Take your shots, guys

[THuckaby2]

VERY interesting and I love all of this!  I am, however, having a hard time understanding your basic premise, ie:

First, my problem with most "Cape" holes is that the longer hitter, after having "bitten off" more on the drive than the shorter hitter, usually has a more straight-forward approach angle to the green - and with a shorter club, as well!  It seemes to me that the true "strategic Cape" would leave the SHORTER player with the easier angle/longer club and the longer hitter with the more challenging angle to compensate for the shorter club to be used.

Please explain for dense ole me - why shouldn't a player hitting a stronger, more risky drive be rewarded for such in ALL aspects (distance and angle)?  I sorta understand this - it gives more ways to play the hole and more chances for success - but a hole like you prescribe would just mean NO ONE takes the riskier longer route - why wouldn't the longer hitter just hit an easier club off the tee, to get the better angle?  Then he's at the same place as the "shorter" hitter, and then hits less club anyway....

I like the idea so my question is an honest one... Maybe I am missing something.  Sure wouldn't be the first time.

Thanks!

TH

edited to remove an extra word erroneously not deleted before

[THuckaby2]

Forgive me - I've thought about this more and maybe figured it out a bit better... You advocate not making the choices so clear-cut for the better player (ie, long shot means shorter distance but perhaps not better angle, making him think even more on the tee) whilst also giving some equity to the shorter player, for whom there is less choice... Is this it?

If so, that does indeed make for a better golf hole.

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

Chipoat,

Excellent post, and wonderful examples.  

[Doug Wright]

Chip,

I second Mike's emotion--one of the best posts of the new year because you support your position with concrete examples. I was certainly thinking the Cape hole at Mid Ocean before I read your post. Now I'm not so sure... :-/

All The Best,

[THuckaby2]

I'll make it three, that's for sure.  It OBVIOUSLY got me thinking given my two posts above!

Fantastic examples also, right on.

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Good posts

The leven hole at Yale (#6) works in a similar way to the one at NGLA but distance off the tee is not the premium.  The left side of the fairway is bordered by a stream that cuts into the fairway probably 270 or so from the tee.  THe only person I've actually seen take it over the water from a back tee is JohnV.  Mere mortals try to hug the left side of the fairway to avoid the right greenside bunker that plays much like the one seen above at NGLA. The hole at Yale does not have any carry feature on the drive and you avoid the carry on the second shot by challenging the lateral water hazard on the drive.

Does that suit you better Chip?


Also, the main feature of a "cape" hole is the appearance of the green jutting out into the water not the diagonal carry off the tee. Using Yale again as an example we can look at the 2nd hole.  There is no carry off the tee (unless you count the stream 100 yards off the tee) but the green is a cape jutting out into a hillside with bunkers 30 feet below the green surface.  See photo in Ran's course profile and the aerial from 1934 that I posted a couple of days ago in two different threads.

[Doug Wright]

GeoffreyC,

Interesting...

Here is the GCA writeup re Mid Ocean's 5th:

"Mid Ocean's supporting cast includes the all-universe 5th, the prototypical Cape hole. From a high tee, this 430 yarder plummets across the lake with a tempting diagonal carry. Of the dozens of photographs taken from the tee of this hole, the authors have still never seen one of the approach, which is equally impressive. The long, rather narrow green is set at a right-to-left angle to the player and features a considerable slope from the right, much like a narrower version of the 8th green at Yale. This slope underlines the advantage gained from a bold tee shot down the left as the player is then hitting into the slope, using it somewhat as a backstop, while the player from the right side of the fairway has a much narrower target (and with a longer club). This is a rare hole that deserves all the praise it receives. There is no finer 5th to be found."

I don't recall that the 5th green juts out into the water as you described, but it's been a long time since I was there so I may be wrong. If it doesn't, is the GCA description wrong?

Also, based on this GCA description, I now think the 5th at Mid Ocean is a very strategic hole indeed.  

All The Best,

[GeoffreyC]

Doug

I believe that Brian Silva also missed the point about the cape hole in his LINKS article.

Here is what George Bahto says in his feature interview on this site

"The 'Cape' hole, according to Macdonald, was first labeled that (not first designed) when he built the 14th at NGLA. Most people think it is the angle of the tee-ball play that makes it a 'Cape hole' - not true. The word 'cape' refers to a body of land jutting into a body of water, forming a small peninsula. Macdonald 14th 'Cape' green originally jutted into the bay, but was subsequently moved in the late 1920s for two reasons. One was that downwind, big hitters were attempting to drive the green. The second was the necessity of constructing a new access road along the edge of the shoreline. Macdonald moved the green to the left further onto shore and surrounded it with sand. Then, Raynor (a civil engineer also) designed a new access road leading to the front gate. Cape holes come in a variety of designs. The 14th at Fishers Island, for example, requires the tee-ball to flirt close to the edge of a hazard rather than successfully attempt a carry. Even greens that jut out into midair on the edge of a precipice can be considered 'Cape-style greens' - the second green (not the second hole) at Yale was called just that in an early verbal description."

Lets hear from our YODA of MacDonald/Raynor.

Paging Mr. Bahto.  Mr. Bahto come in please.

[ChipOat]

Tom Huckaby:

I think you get it but I'll re-state since it's clearly a personal preference thing like blondes/brunettes and chocolate/vanilla, etc.

My basic premises are:

1) The longer hitters already have an advantage - and a perfectly fair one, at that.  However, why make that advantage even more pronounced by designing a hole where only the longer hitter is able to achieve the optimal angle of attack on the approach?

2) In almost all cases, I like the idea that "the shorter the club that is intended to be used on an approach to a green, the more precision should be demanded either via green size and/or angle of green plus protecting bunkers".

This means that my personal preferences are:

1) As you concluded, I like holes where the longer hitter has to decide if the short way home is worth the tougher angle or whether he plays the hole for a better angle like the shorter player is forced to do - albeit with a shorter club!

This means that, because of the way the greens are angled, I prefer Merion #15 to Pine Valley #6 as a strategic Cape-type hole.  Would many others share my preference?  I doubt it.  Pine Valley #6 is a visual stunner that rewards the heroic tee shot.  Merion #15 is a subtle parkland design that is overshadowed by its other 4 neighbors on that course's well known "back 5" finishing holes.

2) I also like small, dangerous greens on holes intended for short iron approaches (e.g. #8 at Pine Valley or #'s 8 & 9 at Cypress).  Alternatively, like Tom Paul, I like "multiple greens within a big green" as short iron targets such as #6 at National or #14 at Pebble.

Would I, for example, like to see the greens made smaller at Pine Valley #12 and Merion #10?  You bet.  Do I think #10 at Riviera is the best example of BOTH my points?  Absolutely.
(Thanks, Tom Paul).

So there.

Mike Cirba:

Thanks for your support - what's your take on this?

[THuckaby2]

Muchas gracias, Chip.  This is one damn fine take on strategic golf, and you have educated me tremendously.  I swear I never thought of it this way at all and you have indeed converted me.

But just as a test.... I don't ever trust myself....

17 at National would be better if the green were angled in the opposite direction (ie make it a mirror image)?

Very interesting indeed....

TH

[Doug Wright]

Geoffrey,

Most interesting. If we buy Mr. Bahto's definition, then there seems to be a lot of misuse of the term. Another example of "misuse" is Tom Doak's description of #6 at my home course, Denver CC, as a Cape hole. So...what, if anything, do we call holes like #5 at Mid Ocean and #6 DCC if they're not truly Cape holes; i.e. holes where there is a diagonal "bite off what you can chew" carry?

All The Best,

[Mark_Fine]

Someone who can hit it long and accurate should have an advantage over someone who can hit it short and accurate - case closed.  Any course that doesn't reward this is some way is in my mind less than ideal!  

Let's not forget what game it is that we are playing and that one of the prime objectives in golf is to play holes in the least number of strokes possible.  This objective generally holds whether you keep score of not!    

[THuckaby2]

That was my initial thought also, Mark.

But the more I thought of it, the more Chip's take goes way beyond that... at least I think so... I'll let Chip explain for himself, though.

TH

[GeoffreyC]

Doug

I think the basic idea of a cape hole is misused by the huge majority of people.

The American College Dictionary definition

cape- a piece of land jutting into the sea or some other body of water.
The Cape of Good Hope
Cape Horn etc

[Mike_Cirba]

Chipoat,

I have to agree with you, and thus, disagree somewhat with Mark Fine.

We all have such passionate discussions about how unbridled technological growth is ruining the game, and how the pure power game is becoming a cross country game of lawn darts.

Then, we also praise holes that not only give the longest hitters a shorter approach shot, but also a clear path.  What's next, a ramp to the hole?

A few weeks ago I watched an old match of "Big Three Golf" on the Golf Channel.  It took place at lengthy, if "non-strategic" Firestone, and I was singularly impressed with Gary Player.  On many holes, he was left with woods and long iron approaches, yet he consistently struck them to within close range of the hole.  

On the face of it, Jack Nicklaus, much physically larger and more powerful, should have dominated, but because Player had such accuracy, Player was in it til the end.  

Mark Fine's argument assumes that the player like Nicklaus who drives it longer is a better golfer.  It isn't necessarily so; he's just longer and stronger.  

However,  on a course full of "cape" holes, where a shorter player has to lay back and the longer one can continually gain advantage, Nicklaus would have creamed him.

I think it's all about angles, and how they are created.  #15 at Merion is a PERFECT example, once again, because the longer hitter has to take a much riskier angle that might easily bound through the fairway and OB, if he wants the preferred angle for the second shot.  

With the USGA & R&A seemingly impotent to rein in technology, we should be having more of these discussions that focus on how thoughtful architecture can do their work for them.

[ChipOat]

GeofferyC et al:

Sorry to have misused the Cape description although my experience is that all the Cape-type holes I can think of have Doug Wright's diagonal "bite off what you can chew" tee ball opportunity with a green that is, by design, somewhat more receptive to the guy who's bitten off the most - which is my whole point.  The short hitter's tougher shot isn't just because it's longer - it's also because the green's angled to favor the approach from the long hitter's side.

I don't know what to call what I have in mind - it seems like "dogleg" isn't quite descriptive enough, though.

And, yes, #6 at Yale does make me feel better.  Of course, given the choice to play National or Yale on any given day - I'm afraid I'd compromise my "strategic" principles about 99% of the time.

Tom Huckaby:

You got it!  In a perfect "strategic" world, the longer hitter down the left side of #17 at National would then face a more complicated problem with a shorter club than his more mortal counterpart who is unable to bite off as much and is forced to play from the middle of the fairway with a longer club.  Is the answer (assuming there really is a "problem") a mirror image of the current green complex?  I suspect a real architect could achieve the same result with something more subtle (and I know you guys are out there!).  However, you definitely get my drift.

Mark Fine:

Long and accurate players already have a legitimate advantage over the shorter, accuate ball striker.  I'm not advocating "taking the driver out of the hands" of the long knockers via forced lay-ups, severly pinched fairways, etc. (at least not in this discussion).  I'm all for giving the long hitter the choice.  However, I'm not always enamored with holes that are designed such that ONLY the longer hitter can find the best angle for the next shot.  The exceptions I can think of are when the rest of the hole offers something truly special (such as #18 at National) but, by and large, I like holes where longer hitters just have a length advantage - not a design advantage, as well.

I also like "in your face" holes requiring heroic shots, too but that's not what this thread's all about.

[THuckaby2]

VERY cool, Chip - thanks!  Just looking at the picture of NGLA 17, mirror image conveyed the easiest way to "fix" the hole I could think of, though I agree a clever designer could do so in many other ways.

I worship at the altar of NGLA, though... all this talk of improving any hole there is making me feel a little uneasy...

I do LOVE the concept though, in any case...

TH

[Rich_Goodale]

Chip

I have to vote with the "more risk/more reward" school on this one.  To me, having to decide (for example) on whether or not to try to bomb the driver to position A or bunt the 1-iron to position B, or (for another example) whether to hit the high 6-iron at the tucked in pin rather than bump and run the 5-iron to the middle of the green is what strategy is all about.  Whether to take the easy option of the "soft underbelly of Europe" (as Churchill advocated) or go for Normandy and D-Day, as Eisenhower did.  Whether to accept safety and perennial mediocrity (as General Electric (UK) did) or take the risk of transformation, as GE (US) has done.  One is perhaps the leading company in the world, the other is near bankruptcy.

Any hole that allows the 1-iron lay-up off the tee to leave one with the same shot values to the hole as the driver bombed around the corner, or has a green where the expertly struck shot is not rewarded, is not an optimal test of golfing strategy (or is not "strategic", in the anthropomorphical use which is unfortunately common on this site and elsewhere).

Boy, that felt good!

[Doug Wright]

Rich,

Glad it was good for you...

As for the rest of us, isn't it "anthropomorphic?"  

All The Best,

[ChipOat]

Tom Huckaby:

National's one of my top 3 places to enjoy golf for a whole lot of reasons - I'm not advocating changes, either (golf course or otherwise).  However, Mark Huxford did start this thread using #17 to open up one of my all-time favorite issues of golf hole design.  So how could I resist?

Besides, National is a perfect example for all sorts of threads relating to "then and now":

1) ground game/air game
2) big greens/small greens
3) modern speed greens/"classic era" speed greens
4) watering systems/unwatered fairways
5) 1.68 ball/1.62 ball (used in the U.S. prior to 1930  something)

How can you discuss the evolution of technology, playing conditions and golf course construction without examining National?

We'll have some fun with those, someday.

CO

[THuckaby2]

My God is this risky, but.... leaving the historic and business references aside...

Sticking to how this relates to golf, I really think you're missing this one, Rich.  Read carefully how Chip explains this... The point isn't that the bold driver leaves the same shot as the safe 1iron, but more that the bold driver leaves a shorter shot that is NOT necessarily 100% easier... The bold driver is rewarded, but not COMPLETELY.  Thus there is more thought on the tee, it's not completely cut and dried.  It also leaves a doable route for the player for a heroic shot is impossible.  Picture 17NGLA with the green angling the other way... the choices off the tee would be much more difficult to decipher.  Right would leave a better angle, but a much longer shot... Left would leave a wedge, but over the bunkers... probably worth the risk, but not for everyone... adds a lot more thought to the mix.

And Chip is not saying EVERY hole should be like this, just that those that are are fine indeed.

More risk / more reward is fine, I dig holes like that most definitely... but there is room for "more thought, not having things totally clear" also.

BTW, I am really chuckling at "not an optimal test of golfing strategy (or is not "strategic", in the anthropomorphical use which is unfortunately common on this site and elsewhere).

Didn't we have a little off-line chat about overusing 25-cent words?  

Sometimes a technically incorrect usage just sounds and works better, YA KNOW?  I sure AIN'T kiddin'.

TH

ps - God willing, my English teacher Dad will never see this.

[THuckaby2]

We crossed in cyberspace, Chip and I hope I did your theories justice in my response to Rich.

Hang around this site a bit more and you'll see, NGLA is nearly ALWAYS an example cited, in any discussion... and several of the topics you mention have already been discussed here in relation to this gem.  I have absolutely no problems mentioning and discussing NGLA, I love to do so!

I just get a little scared suggesting improvements...

The ghosts there might not look on me favorably if I ever return, you see....

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()