[Jeff_Lewis]

I know that I have never loved penal design, which I would describe as "hit it HERE, or ELSE", and am always more interested in the vanishing art of strategic design, especially as it relates to watching tour players have to first, make a decision, then execute.

I watched Atlanta Athletic Club on TV and saw a lot of HIT IT HERE stuff going on. I have to wonder if there is any reasonable strategy in the architecture on 18. I guess the first problem I have with the hole is there doesn't seem to be a safe option off the tee. Whether guys were hitting irons or drivers, it seemed to be rather treacherous. Also, I didn't see the strategy of the second shot.  From the bunkers, there was no choice - a layup was mandatory, and from the fairway, players pretty much had to go for it and it was a HIT IT HERE shot, for sure.

I would not want to see a hole as penal as the 17th at Sawgrass on every golf course, but that one certainly works for me in the tournament context, especially given its length.  But as much as I enjoyed the players' performance down the stretch yesterday, I was still not impressed with the golf course at all.

[Brent Hutto]

Part of the problem is the additional constraints that the distance explosion of the past few decades has brought into play. If you want to make a "simple" option off the tee, frequent ways of penalizing the player for accepting that option are to give him a longer shot and/or a worse angle into his next target (the green, typically). But the "longer" part now starts looking like 220, 230, 240 or more yards for the approach is you want to really be daunting. And the "worse angle" has the same effect, no angle in the world matters for these guys unless the distance is 200+ yards.

So the situation you're using for example really means if you want "hit it here or else" on the tee shot then you need a dozen more acres of turf and/or a "hit it here or else" punitive green complex to enforce it at the other end.

The days are long gone when you could have a very demanding or penal tee shot option leaving a 160-yard approach to a tricky green and offer the alternative of a 190-yard approach to a target unfavorable to a low trajectory in exchange for an easier tee-shot challenge. Now it means offering a 200-yard approach as the "reward" and a 240-yard one as the price for not taking on the tee shot. Plus of course the tee shot in question had better be 280+ yards or it isn't that penal anyway because they'll hit an iron.

[George Pazin]

I like your simple definition of penal design.

I'm not sure I understand why the drive on 18 is harder than any number of other ball buster 18ths - Sawgrass, WFW, Doral, etc. And while it's very different, I don't see it as any harder than Oakmont or Carnoustie, two I enjoy watching. It's the do or die presence of water that makes it less compelling to me personally.

For me, it's HOW a course is penal, moreso than IF a course is penal. And it's similar with water. A meandering creek is fine, a big fronting pond is not. To me, water such as AAC or even TPC promotes too much of a black and white approach, as opposed to the grayscale and full color approaches I favor.

[John Kavanaugh]

The winner hit hybrid the second place guy hit driver.  If there were no options both would hit driver.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Gentlemen

The original Penal gave you a shock if your shot was poor. You pay the price for that error, although golf courses can also be very forgiving. The important part of that early penal design was that alternative options were available to the player. It was penal but with a big portion of strategic within the initial design, as the idea was never to kill the ball or game, but you the golfer were expected (taking into account the variable skill levels of the day) to navigate the route most suitable to your skill with an option of ‘going for it’. Remember a game is made up of 18 segments, of which any one could destroy the round, hence why penal was very strategic in the good old days, it called for confidence and calculated moves, not a devil may care attitude – the thinking and walking golfer.

Today the idea of penal is shallow, hard sanded bunkers, banked up greens to save an over run and the continued demise of cross fairway bunkers, those little beauties which challenged the big hitters of all periods.

WE face the modern player who has been cosseted into thinking golf is easy, not a walk but ride in the park mentality, so anything resembling a difficult hazard that needs a little thought causes trouble – why, because modern golfers are no longer required or trained to THINK, using wheels to get around, toys to select clubs, or caddies to advise anything else - just where is the real challenge these days?

Architects/designers for the most part will not rock the boat so follow the requirement of the owners. A few great courses do not make a good age let alone golden, nor do they offer strategic or penal courses, allowing most players the ability to do two, three or four things while playing the modern game of Golf. The thinking Golfer is now in decline thanks to the total misunderstanding of a real course, a penal course as without out strategic it could not be defined as Penal

Melvyn

[Mark Saltzman]

A quick tidbit re 18 at AAC. The hole is better IMO than most here are giving it credit for. Remember, the hole plays as a 530 yard par 5 but for 4 days every decade. When I played the course I had the option of hitting driver off the tee, which brings the water left into play, or laying back in which case there is miles of room left. The tee shot is not do or die for most players.

Even on the second shot (where mortals will be laying up), a tee shot that is farther up has a better opportunity of laying up into the small neck of fairway that leaves a very short third. Shots that are a layup off the tee (short of the water) and do not challenge the tight bunker have a difficult layup that must skirt/carry the water on the left. Tee shots up the right have plenty of room in which to layup.

The third is do or die, as are all approach shots over water, but it should be a short shot with a wedge, so deal with it.

[Mike Hendren]

Jeff, as usual your comments make sense.

The fact that I wouldn't walk across the street to play this golf course is more a reflection of my game than the architecture.  At least ACC is true to its school, lacking the pretense of theoretically strategic American parkland courses where fairways are constricted and rough cultivated to defend against the game's best during  major championships (Augusta National Golf Club excepted - it is the greatest tournament course in the world, imho).  The architecture at ACC is the only way to combat the bomb and gouge game that everybody on this site has complained about for years.  The USGA's cutesy "graduated" rough by comparison seems silly.  

Today's game for the best players has devolved into a contest of shot execution and putting.  ACC is right in that wheelhouse - nothing more, nothing less.   It is the perfect venue for the PGA.  

Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()