Bobby Jones on strategic golf

[THuckaby2]

Doug - good one!

And you are correct.

It's fun to "catch" Brains, isn't it?

Just watch it... every one of these means he's gonna catch you and I at least 25 times... I've gone down this road already, and it is a road to ruin....

TH

[Doug Wright]

Tom IV,

I'm already on the road to ruin. Just ask my wife...

All The Best,

[THuckaby2]

Doug:  You and me both, brother.  Have our wives been chatting?

 

TH

[Chris_Hunt]

Another principle to support Chip's concepts about length/angle reward would be that many of today's better players do not need the advantage of the angle.  The longer hitter tends to play the ball higher in my experience, so when they fly their approach all the way to the pin and stop it on a dime, coupled with superior knowledge and control of their distance, the angle rarely matters.  He doesn't need an opening to funnel the ball to a pin.  He doesn't care about a fronting hazard that he will easily fly.  The only feature of green angle that matters to good players is depth, but I think a player would trade a 40-yard advantage for a few yards of green depth.

By setting up a better angle for the shorter line. it would seem to create a more appropriate shade of gray, incrementally improving the approach line by gradually decreasing your carry.

At the same time, the shorter shot must not simply be a bailout, for those that prefer an angle over length (low ball hitters, etc.) should still be forced to challenge some hazard.

Chip:  It was a pleasure playing Machrihanish with you in the fall.  Good to see you are getting some use out of and adding valuable design input to the site.  I hope the bunkers are growing in nicely these days.

[Rich_Goodale]

Doug

What's an extra syllable amongst friends?  BTW, I'm still thinking about that "Fringe Achipalooza II" idea that you picked up so smoothly.......

Tom and Chip

I'm more of an "either/or" guy than the two of you.  I don't have a "Subtlety Happens!" bumper sticker on my Toyota.  Any hole that offers more than one serious choice is seriously too serious, IMHO.  Just think about opne hole that I know and the two of you know, the 3rd at Doronch.

Once you get over the knee-jellying view of the links as you pass out of the shadows of the valley of the gorse you really have only 2 options.  Aim the driver at the bunkers on the right and try to draw it though that narrow channel that will ultimately deposit it 100 yards or so from the green in the right light rough (or aim out at the gorse on the left and fade it to the same place, if you are of the Huckster's power fade persuasion), or wimp out and hit whatever club leaves you short of the fairway bunkers.

Option A gives you a wedge to the green, and a reasonable chance to get close to the pin.  Option B gives you a mid-iron to the green and you wil get close only with your very very best shot, and may well not reach the green at all.

There is a further strategic interest to this hole.  If you bail out on the dirver and end up right of the right bunkers, in the fescue rough, sharing stories with your friends who have reached the same position with their second, or third, or fourth, or fifth..........shots to the 14th, you can still get to the green, with an herioc shot.  Likewise, if you duck hook the "safe" knife off the tee you can also find yourself near the green in two, with some skill and a little more luck.

Any more possibilities than this and my brain starts to hurt.......

Cheers

Rich

[Doug Wright]

Tom IV,

yes our wives have been chatting--on GolfClubAtlasWidows.com  
Rich,

Do you know when Archipalooza II is scheduled? I need to know so I can get to renting Max Yazgur's farm..    

All The Best,

[THuckaby2]

Rich, OK, gotcha, but it's not like I have a "Please Confuse the Hell Out of Me" bumper sticker on my car!

I kinda like a golf hole to be unclear.  There are just so few of these, at least that I get to play, I really relish those that I do see.  

Re 3 at Dornoch, fine example, great hole.  But let's not confuse "strategic choices" with "possible outcomes" - your home course might have either/or for the former, but the latter is INFINITE!  I know... I likely saw some outlying places you get to only very, very rarely....

Considering all possible outcomes makes my head hurt also.  Considering strategic choices - that is, which route is BETTER FOR ME TO TRY, RIGHT NOW -  when the answer isn't really clear - that is fun for me.  I likely have done a very poor job explaining the difference but with all my participation here today my fingers are hurting!

TH

[Paul Richards]

Doug:

GolfClubAtlasWidows.com  

Now that's a scary thought!

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

I feel your pain, and I agree with you.

Doug and Paul, et. al.

The website we should all be fearing is:

triallawyersforgolfclubatlaswidows.com

Rich

[THuckaby2]

Fantastic!  Well said, Doug and Rich.  Oh yes, maybe we ought to reserve those domain names now as a pre-emptive strike...

TH

[Paul Richards]

Rich:

>triallawyersforgolfclubatlaswidows.com

No doubt this is the one to fear!

[ChipOat]

Rich Goodale

1) 5 iron/6 iron differences don't bother me.  It's when the longer player has a 9 iron/5 iron advantage AND a better angle of attack that only he is able to achieve.

Example: #18 at NGLA.  Only the long hitter is able to have a straight-on 2nd shot because only the long hitter can carry the left hand bunker off the tee.  The more mortal player has to play to the right and, as a result, has to cross bunkers, aim at more bunkers and find a smaller landing area on his second shot!  It happens that #18 is my favorite hole at National for other reasons (see "exceptions" in my reply to Mark Fine) but, like many other holes at NGLA, the longer hitter has a "design advantage" in addition to his inherent "length advantage".  I suspect this was less so when fairways were unwatered and everybody's tee balls rolled 9 miles.  I KNOW this was less so pre-titanium/Pro V1 when carry distances between players were less pronounced.

2) I'm all for risk/reward as long as the opportunity for reward isn't biased by a desuign feature (easier said than done, I know).

3) The longest shot is not always the "most expertly struck"
shot.

4) How on earth do you successfully "bunt" a 1 iron??  In fact, the degree of difficulty on a 1 iron is probably now higher than a driver given the emergence of 350cc clubheads, thin faces, COR yodda, yodda, yodda.  That whole premise might be worth a thread all by itself.  Or a good wager.  Hmmmm.

5) Please note that Dornoch has no holes that display this problem (probably because there's very few doglegs and the problems on #17 are a pretty good long/short equalizer, I think).

Tom Huckaby:

Thanks for your support with Rich, but don't worry.  He's smart enough to belong to Dornoch - he'll get it.

[BCrosby]

I'm with Rich on this one.

Chipar writes:

"...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."

It seems to me that Cape holes offer precisely the kind of risk/reward choice that good, strategically-designed holes ought to offer.  (The "-designed" was added solely to defeat the dreaded Goodale anthropomorphic trap.  Man, correct usage is a bitch.)  

I think what Chipar really objects to is that Cape holes give an inordinate amount of "reward" for "risk" taken on.  You get the benefits of shortening the hole and a better angle into the green with a shorter club.  Sort of a triple pay-off.

But that's ok.  Given that the "reward" is greater on Cape holes than is typical on many other strategically-designed holes, you are likely to take on even more "risk" than you might otherwise.  The calculus has a way of balancing itself out.

The wonderful edginess of that calculus is undermined if the shorter player is given the best angle for his approach.

 

[Doug Wright]

Isn't a mark of the well designed course one that offers a variety of these different features, ie one that has holes where the longer but still reasonably accurate shot profits vs the shorter and holes where the shorter but better placed shot offers an advantage over the longer but less accurate? I agree that if every hole offers a distinct advantage to the longer ball, it'd get pretty boring. I've not played it, but doesn't Pinehurst #2 offer both of these features but generally place a premium on placement for angles to greens?

[Bill McBride]

Back to Bobby Jones' quote and the question about holes which exemplify this ---

I think MacKenzie's courses really utilize the closer to danger, the better the shot concept beautifully.  A good example is #3 at Valley Club, a long par 4 (436 yards), slightly doglegged to the right, deep creek/barranca to the right all the way to the green, and a very steeply pitched green, very fast, with its axis pointed almost into the creek.  It's pretty obvious Dr. MacKenzie designed it like this for two reasons: (1) if you hit it up the left side and want to reach the green, you'll be hitting a long iron or fairway wood into that green at an almost impossible angle to hold the green; and (2) if you want to play it cautiously, you'll have to lay up in front, toward the creek, in order to have a pitch straight up the axis.  Only with a tee shot dangerously close to the barranca will you have a shot reasonably straight up the green.

Same course, the incredible 16th hole, about the same length, has a large fairway bunker 60 yards in front of the green on the left side.  Anything less than your best tee shot and this bunker is definitely in play.  But you have to stay as close to the bunker and the left side as possible because the green has a steep bank on the right side.  Pitching onto the green from the right side of the fairway is similar to the pitch from behind the 8th at Pebble!

Can't wait to get back to the Valley Club!

[Rich_Goodale]

Chip

I thought I had posted a very pithy riposte, but it seems to have been gobbled up in cyberspace.  This will undoubtedly be inferior, but c'est la vie!

1.  The "bunt 1-iron" is something betwen a forward defensive shot and a square cut in cricket.  Sort of a punch shot that rolls out there 220-230 from which point you takes your chances again.

2.  I'm still struggling with the concept of bunting it out there and having a better angle to the pin.  I've only played most of your examples once or nonece, but my memories of 4 and 5 from the tips at Merion a few months ago were 2 480 yard holes that didn't reward any subtlety off the tee unless your given name was Eldrick or you were playing for a 5.

3.  The 5 iron/6 iron statement should probably be epxressed as that conundrum when you are 170 from the 14th at Dornoch and you can either try to fly a 6-7 iron at the pin on the rock hard green or knock down a 4-5 iron and bounce it up onto the putting surface.  I normally fail at either approach, but I do remember Watson in 1981 sticking an 8-iron, downwind.

4.  That is what I mean by the expertly played shot, well beyond my ken, not to mention my ability.......

5.  I'm still willing to be convinced, however........

[Bill_Spellman]

Mr. Oat,
Well said.

Rich Goodale,
What the hell is a "bunt one iron?"

Syd: As only I know you, Your points about Merion  are well recieved, even if the fifteenth doesn't fit the true definition of a "Cape".  It sure as hell plays like it.

I come to GCA with a playing background, and am trying to expand my horizons. ( so well put by Tom Paul a while back. )
Having played the fifth at Mid Ocean probably twenty times, I can say that length doesn't always equate to an easier shot. A second shot from 125 yards on that hole, played from the left side of the fairway to a back left hole location is not easier. The desired approach is from the right side, no matter where the hole. At Merion, the fifteenth cannot be approached from anywhere if the hole is in the front, and back right is every bit as difficult, even from Golf Course Road.

The point I am trying to drunkenly (too many Glenlivets) to make is this: On any given day, one must select the route
to take that is given to you, and it varies for each player. How do you Feel? How is your ball striking? What can you hit to give you the best opportunity to reach the target.OPTIONS,OPTIONS, OPTIONS! THAT IS WHAT A WELL DESIGNED COURSE WILL GIVE YOU! A 475 yard straight away par 4 doesn't present too many options. On a previous post I stated that a good , well designed course, we are playing chess. The board never changes, we do. I am not as well traveled as some who inhabit GCA, but I am willing to try.

Knowing Mr. Oat as only I do, The name is Chip, Charles or Syd, not Chipar(what is that? A typo?)
 
I haven't had much of an opportunity to reflect on course design with Mr. Oat but I plan to pursue this as soon as I take care of an obligation arising from a trip into paradise on earth  last fall.

Syd- I  have never forgotten the idea of a three day trip to The National, Maidstone and Shinnecock. 2002 is the best time I can think of.

Sorry for the ramble

[George Pazin]

To me this is one of the biggest no-brainers I have yet encountered on GCA & I hereby nominate Chip's first post as Post of the Year 2002 - I look forward to reading more lucid points backed up by strong argumentation in the future.

Yes, variety is key to golf course architecture & surely a great design will have many ways to entice & tempt all players, but when comparing two cape holes like Chip does, I'll take the one that forces all players to think every time. Tom Doak stated in one of his books that the problem with most holes with alternate fairways and/or diagonal hazards is that the choice is too straightforward; a competent player knows his carry distances so well that the choice is largely made for him. (Of course, the beauty of being as inconsistent as me is that every shot holds more interest 'cause you never know what's coming next:)!)

Rich, I'm a little surprised that you don't agree with Chip - didn't you indicate that some courses in the UK feature "turbo boosts" that are usually found through accuracy & not purely length.

As Chip pointed out, if the difference in question is simply 5 iron/6 iron, the situation is not as interesting, but if the choice is 5 iron vs. 9 iron or PW, I think it becomes much more interesting. Me, I'll take a 9 iron to a shallow green over a 5 iron to a long skinny green any day plus Sunday. But others who can work the ball might disagree.

I suppose the ideal situation would be a hole where a properly placed tee shot with driver could result in the same angle as a properly placed long iron would be the best of both worlds. This would reward the long accurate driver over the simply long driver. I haven't played enough good courses to give you a hole like this, but I'm sure they're out there.

If I'm not mistaken, I thought one of the original concepts of Augusta was that there were places where the shorter drive to the preferred side of the fairway was better than the longer drive to the less preferred side.

[Rich_Goodale]

Mr. Spellman

Please let me know if the post immediately above yours which describes the "bunt 1-iron" is not clear enough.  Think of it as Tiger's "stinger" executed by a 55-year old body controlled by a mind which still thinks it is 25......

Mr. Pazin

I will second your nomination for Mr.Oat's post as post of the year.  I enter the fray only to try to elicit more comments fom the man himself, and others such as you who can contribute.  I tried to answer the 5/6 iron question in the same post referenced above.  Vis a vis "turbo boosts" (or "fast lanes" as I prefer to refer to them--like that cadence!) the ones I know exist only for hte long and straight hitter.  No bunt 1- Iron down the left hand side of the 14th at Dronoch is going to get anywhere but short.

Mr. Goodale

[ChipOat]

GeoffreyC, Doug_Wright et al

Since, upon more reflection last night than my wife appreciates, I've determined that #14 at Fishers Island does not, in fact, require an angled carry across a hazard off the tee, I hereby amend my assertion that "all" Cape holes that I've played have this "bite off as much........".  It seems to me that MOST of them do.

Incidentally, since the 14th at Fisher's requires a drive as close to danger (the left side pond) as possible to best set up the approach to the green, this hole qualifies as a Merion-like strategic epitome of what RTyreJ referred to in Mark Huxford's kick-off to this thread.

BCrosby

I see your point but, like trees in the fairway, it's not for me.

Chris Hunt

Glad to see a practicing golf architect on the site - are you still in Scotland full-time?

I remember our round at Machrahanish well - you ought to start a thread on upgrading the last 2 holes there.  Pretty anti-climactic, I think - especially #18.

As to this thread, I have 2 thoughts:

1) So angle the hell out of greens when you build them and protect the short side with penal bunkers, etc.

2) I'm certain your assertion that today's pro's are unchallenged by the precise short iron shot is true.  I doubt that's equally true for the good amateur.  I hope the shot values and degree of difficulty in my design preferences are relevant to all except the very best.  If not, then it's time for me to find a new hobby!

Tom Huckaby, Mark Huxford (and whoever's interested)

Re: NGLA as strategic design then and now

In 1908 (and until 19??), before the left side problems could be carried, #'s 17 and 18 at National offered no "design advantage" to the long hitter and were, in fact, the perfect examples of what I espouse.

Think about it.  On #18, the closer you drove it to the left hand bunker, the easier the angle on your second shot (still true today).  MacDonald simply didn't have to consider the possibility of anyone carrying that big yawning bunker.  Q.E.D., the closer to danger, the easier the next becomes.  This, BTW, is what I believe makes Merion so terrific.

On #17, nobody carried that left-side hazard in 1908.  The only way to get there was with a well played draw that rolled 150 yards down the unwatered fairway.  Erego, if a player was able to hit it way down there by playing the more talented (not just longer) shot, he was SUPPOSED to be rewarded with a better angle of attack.

Was there a length advantage back then?  Of course.  Was there a design advantage given to the long hitter?  I bet not.
In the days of the ground game and the 1.62" ball, NGLA was (mostly) the ultimate pure strategic course.

Like you, I think the proper course of action is to enjoy the National for the wonderful golf experience it has always been and limit any changes to the academic discussions on this site!

To All

Thanks for your interest in the posts.  Tom Paul has reminded me on another thread that #10 Riviera is probably the best example of demanding short iron approaches.  He's right - it totally got by me.


Rich Goodale

Remember Lee Trevino's punch line on avoiding lightening by carrying a 1 iron high overhead because "even God can't hit a 1 iron"?

[GeoffreyC]

Great stuff in this discussion.  I just got to see it this morning.

#10 at Riviera was just mentioned.   I don't have my copy of George Thomas' book here but I distinctly remember several diagrams of holes in there that fit Chip's wishes for "fair" strategic holes where the longer drive over trouble leaves a shorter but potentially more hazardous approach.  

For the experts out there - was this one of his design principals?  

[Rich_Goodale]

Chip

I do remember Trevino's punchline, and the fact that I still carry a 1-iron in this age of 240 yard 4-irons and 300 yard power 3-metals really, really dates me........

[Jeff_McDowell]

I'm intrigued with Tom's "what if" scenario of angling the 17th green at NGLA in the opposite direction. Now let's say you leave the fairway bunker in the middle of the fairway alone, but you remove the far right fairway bunker.

This gives the long hitter something to really think about. The long hitter can take a direct line to the green by biting off the carry bunker and skirting the left edge of the center bunker. Obviously, this is the shortest route and would be desireable, but the green would not be at the optimum angle. At the same time, the long hitter could go to the right of the center bunker. This would slightly lengthen the hole, but would give an optimum angle to the green.

Rich, I'm interested in how you feel about the above scenario. I'm wondering if this idea fits into your preference of the longer hitter having the favorable angle into the green.

[Rich_Goodale]

Jeff

My preference is only that the long and straight shot be rewarded, particularly if it is made in the face of significant risk.  Your and Tom H's scenario for the revised 17th at NGLA is intriguing, even though CB is probably rolling over in his grave and Gib Papazian choking on his cellphone as I type.  For this to really work (in my universe) the green would have to be canted slightly from left to right, so that the long hitter from "position A" on the right of the fairway would have a more receptive green to hit into, while the shorter hitter would have to execute a very good shot from the left to keep his approach on the green.  In this universe, the shorter hitter could also lay up short of the center bunker and thus gain the advantage of the green slopes, while sacrificing some additional distance.

Of course, I've only played the real hole once, and I chopped it badly (trying to forget, but this site won't let me!), so what do I know.......

Cheers

Rich

[GeoffreyC]

Is this what you wanted?  I don't care for it as much as the original. It takes away the incentive to go left especially if it is firm as is the case often enough at NGLA.

NGLA 17 flipped greensite

[Tags:]

Tags: