The Old Macdonald dilemma....

[Greg Tallman]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.

OK, How did you 4-putt #2?


Dtsclaimer: Question asked by a guy who 9-putted in a tournament, making a 3 footer with about 6 inches of break on the 9th putt.

[George Pazin]

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

Not at all true.

How do you view Seve's famous shot from the parking lot?

On a well designed course with a lot of width, you pay for the off line shot with an approach from a bad angle. On a more typical course, you pay for it by hitting from the rough, a bunker or dropping from a hazard. The average golfer isn't going to get what you ascribe as "lucky breaks" all day long, that's just silly.

If you're getting pars from your hybrid all day long, you're not an average golfer. If you're not getting up and down all day on every hole, you're not a good golfer.

EDIT: read your example again, first time I read it I thought they were halving in par, now I see they're halving in bogey. Still doesn't really change my feelings, however; additionally, if you're halving every hole with another golfer, you're the same level golfer, you shouldn't be getting strokes.

[Garland Bayley]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.

OK, How did you 4-putt #2?


Dtsclaimer: Question asked by a guy who 9-putted in a tournament, making a 3 footer with about 6 inches of break on the 9th putt.

I miss, I miss, I miss, I make.








(Is that not Seve's famous explanation?)

[Jud_T]

I guess the question is how many 5 HDCP or better here have OM as their favorite course at the resort?  How many of same prefer it to BT (the favorite of many strong players in my experience)?

[Greg Tallman]

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

Not at all true.

How do you view Seve's famous shot from the parking lot?

On a well designed course with a lot of width, you pay for the off line shot with an approach from a bad angle. On a more typical course, you pay for it by hitting from the rough, a bunker or dropping from a hazard. The average golfer isn't going to get what you ascribe as "lucky breaks" all day long, that's just silly.

If you're getting pars from your hybrid all day long, you're not an average golfer. If you're not getting up and down all day on every hole, you're not a good golfer.

I chuckle at the notion of preferred angle for a guy who just hit his tee shot 65 yards right of where he was trying to hit it. The angle is no penalty for the guy who has no clue where it is going yet can hit it wildly off line, roll a second shot up the fairway , get on the green and two putt for a bogey and tie the guy who has hit some form of quality golf shots. I love cross bunkering well short of the green 50-80 yards... puts some skill back into play anyway while still alowong for a real ground game rather than a ground only game to succeed.

[Greg Tallman]

I guess the question is how many 5 HDCP or better here have OM as their favorite course at the resort?  How many of same prefer it to BT (the favorite of many strong players in my experience)?

Yes and in harmony with the comments from the panelist I referenced earlier in this thread. He's probably a 2 or 3 hdcp.

[Greg Tallman]

2 points in your example Greg:

1.  Good player must have played his second too agressively to be left with a tough up and down.

2.  Average player must have hit a better than average pitch and therefor deserves to win.

Neither got up and in... the average player has hit zero quality shots yet won the hole with his stroke

Low handicappers have such fragile egos.
No wonder they don't get Old MacDonald.

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

We get penalized for bad shots all the time at Old MacDonald. Ask me about hooking it into the bunker fronting #15 and failing to get out with my first three strokes. Ask me about hitting it into the gorse on #16. Ask me about 4 putting #2. Etc., etc., etc.

OK, How did you 4-putt #2?


Dtsclaimer: Question asked by a guy who 9-putted in a tournament, making a 3 footer with about 6 inches of break on the 9th putt.

I miss, I miss, I miss, I make.


(Is that not Seve's famous explanation?)

So for me it was...
I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I miss, I make.

[George Pazin]

I chuckle at the notion of preferred angle for a guy who just hit his tee shot 65 yards right of where he was trying to hit it. The angle is no penalty for the guy who has no clue where it is going yet can hit it wildly off line, roll a second shot up the fairway , get on the green and two putt for a bogey and tie the guy who has hit some form of quality golf shots. I love cross bunkering well short of the green 50-80 yards... puts some skill back into play anyway while still alowong for a real ground game rather than a ground only game to succeed.

But that's really where your hypothetical fails, imho. If you're hitting 35 or 65 yards off line all day, you're not rolling hybrids into ok positions every time, particularly if the well designed hole has preferred angles.

[Garland Bayley]

The avergae player loves not getting penalized for bad shots. no wonder they...

Not at all true.

How do you view Seve's famous shot from the parking lot?

On a well designed course with a lot of width, you pay for the off line shot with an approach from a bad angle. On a more typical course, you pay for it by hitting from the rough, a bunker or dropping from a hazard. The average golfer isn't going to get what you ascribe as "lucky breaks" all day long, that's just silly.

If you're getting pars from your hybrid all day long, you're not an average golfer. If you're not getting up and down all day on every hole, you're not a good golfer.

I chuckle at the notion of preferred angle for a guy who just hit his tee shot 65 yards right of where he was trying to hit it. The angle is no penalty for the guy who has no clue where it is going yet can hit it wildly off line, roll a second shot up the fairway , get on the green and two putt for a bogey and tie the guy who has hit some form of quality golf shots. I love cross bunkering well short of the green 50-80 yards... puts some skill back into play anyway while still alowong for a real ground game rather than a ground only game to succeed.

Greg, is your other name Joshua Crane?

This is the Crane - Behr/MacKenzie argument repeated.

I defer to defer to my learned Behr/MacKanzie counsel, and drop out at this time.

[Andy Troeger]

However, I do personally like balance and don't like leveling the playing field, whether its intentional or an unintended result. That's just my personal opinion.

And your idea of balance does not tip things in favor of the better player? It is far far (maybe even another far!) more common for golf courses to be designed and set up to favor the better player - one yard can mean the difference between fairway and silly heavy rough, green and a penalty drop water hazard.
Hate to harp on the broad-minded thing, but having an open mind can be applied to things other than golf course styles.
The better player always has the advantage. If he's not capable of exploiting it, then maybe he's not so much better.

My idea of balance tips things in favor of those that can properly strategize shots and then execute them. And I don't aplogize for that. In no other sport (that I'm familiar with at least) is anything done to level the field for those who cannot do those things, whether it be for lack of athleticism, time to practice, etc. I certainly don't mind if a great course can also accomodate higher handicaps, but its not that important to me in the grand scheme of things, certainly not compared to some. Heck, Pine Valley ate me for lunch for the first nine holes because I played awful golf. The second nine was a 13 shot improvement because I executed at times. I certainly think there should be courses available to all level of players, and that some may favor courses that aren't appealing to me.

I should mention I have no problem with courses having bail out areas, etc. I certainly would rather play a course with a lot of room to drive like Old MacDonald than a course with not enough (like a lot of places).  Recovery options are important, but I don't think every player should have the right to "recover" from EVERY spot on the golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

Recovery options are important, but I don't think every player should have the right to "recover" from EVERY spot on the golf course.

Andy:

I agree with this, but one of the things that peeves many players about Old Macdonald is that there are places around the greens where it's difficult / almost impossible to get up and down, even though it's all short grass.

[Garland Bayley]

Recovery options are important, but I don't think every player should have the right to "recover" from EVERY spot on the golf course.

Andy:

I agree with this, but one of the things that peeves many players about Old Macdonald is that there are places around the greens where it's difficult / almost impossible to get up and down, even though it's all short grass.

To quote A. Vernon Macan. "You can't buy your score in the pro-shop."

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
Absolutely. My two favorite holes at Old Mac were probably #5 and 7, which were also my two doubles. I thought I hit the perfect shot on #5 until it kept rolling right into a very nasty bunker. Both have severe areas with short grass--you can hit the green on #5 and have a tough "recovery." #7 uses short grass as a very challenging hazard!

I like short grass as a hazard--but I think it can be overused in the same fashion that water hazards and bunkers can be overused. Old Mac uses short grass as a hazard VERY well generally, but it uses it a lot too. Good and disturbing perhaps, as Bart said! I might grow to appreciate it more with more plays too.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Recovery isn't just about being able to make par with an average chip and putt, its also about finishing the hole with the ball you started with, and maybe, if you pull off a great chip or bump and run and roll in a 15 footer, making par.

I don't understand Greg's argument at all. A "good" player hits a "good" shot into an area where he can't get up and down? Golf is not a beauty contest, a perfectly struck iron that makes a great sound on impact and soars beautifully thru the air while the player holds his follow thru, but ends up a short sided miss off the green is not a good shot. The greens at OM are massive, how is missing the green in the wrong spot a good shot?

[Sean_A]

Don

I was thinking the same thing.  How does a shot missing a huge green become qualified as a good shot unless it was about the best recovery possible from a bad spot?  Guys often mix up good strike with good shot. 

The more folks talk about Old Mac the more intrigued I become.  It is definitely the course I would like to see most at the resort.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

My idea of balance tips things in favor of those that can properly strategize shots and then execute them. And I don't aplogize for that. In no other sport (that I'm familiar with at least) is anything done to level the field for those who cannot do those things, whether it be for lack of athleticism, time to practice, etc.

It seems that your idea of balance is to tip things in favor of the specific things you favor. You label the things you favor as emphasizing the proper things, and the things you don't as attempts to level the playing field.

Read Don's post, it says it better than I can.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
Part of me is not sure how to respond. Of course I favor the aspects of architecture I think are important--so do you! Isn't that the point of having an opinion? Perhaps my labels aren't worded correctly.

I'm thinking of balance as a mix between strategy and execution. Speaking generally, I think courses can have too many options or be too strategic. If you've got 4 realistic options off the tee, then you've got a good chance of "missing" it in a good place. That "might" make for a great individual hole, but I don't find it appropriate 12 times per round (or to that extreme level even more than a few times). Ditto having narrow fairways with trouble on both sides--execution only. But there's a middle ground between those, and I think most of the great courses find that "grey" area. Old Mac for me is a little too far to the strategy side--which might be why so many here love it. Again, of course my idea of "balance" between these two is MY ideal. Yours might be different and there's no right/wrong here, but I think we all have an ideal mix. I would guess I find execution to be more important than the majority of folks here, but probably less so than most elite players (of which I am not).

Regarding Don's post I think too much emphasis is also placed on never losing a golf ball. I've never seen it written into the rule book that the golfer has a right to keep his golf ball for an entire round. Some of the most interesting hazards IMO are such because they contain the possibility of a lost ball. Others because of a steep slope away from the hole that causes a challenging recovery but no lost ball, or just a subtle feature that makes the next shot a bit more difficult but not overly burdensome. All of these things (and far more) are mixed together on the great courses--they don't rely on the same theme on every hole.

[Jud_T]

Andy,

Point taken.  But doesn't that circumvent using what the land gives you?  If what's available is plenty of sandy humps and bumps on wide open windy terrain, with no trees or water would you introduce some just to fit your ideal balance?  would you leave more gorse or long fescue that folks would have to play around/over?

[Sean Leary]

Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?

[George Pazin]

Greg makes a good point. Why do bogey golfers care about preferred or non preferred angles?

Because they're preferred or non-preferred? Why wouldn't the bogey golfer care?

A bogey golfer can control his tee shots, albeit to a less consistent degree than a better golfer can. If you can save yourself a stroke every now and then by being on the preferred side, why wouldn't you try to do that? Should a bogey golfer just swing away and hope for the best?

Andy, that was a good post, I have to think about it a bit.

[Sean Leary]

George,

I think bogey and even most low and mid handicappers  aim straight and hope to hit it solid and find it in a good spot. I don't know of bogey golfers that can pick their line. And on their second shot, if they hit it well, they are trying to hit it near the green, hopefully on it.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Point taken.  But doesn't that circumvent using what the land gives you?  If what's available is plenty of sandy humps and bumps on wide open windy terrain, with no trees or water would you introduce some just to fit your ideal balance?  would you leave more gorse or long fescue that folks would have to play around/over?

Jud,
I think you try to take what's available--perhaps on the site you mention you dig a few really challenging bunkers or include more fescue/rough, something that the golfer has to avoid. I don't think you introduce trees and water on a site where they look foreign. That's perhaps partially why irrigation ponds on desert courses (especially when there is only one) tend to look out of place. The desert often is penalty enough, however. I admittedly am a sucker for holes and courses that  use creeks or burns or barrancas as diagonal hazards, but if you don't have one at your disposal you have to make due otherwise. You can achieve a similar result with a strategically placed bunker.

[SL_Solow]

Andy's post does a good job of synthesizing the discussion.  While the discussion has gone on for several days and pages, the lines for the "dichotomy" were drawn from the start and the issue dates back to some of the earliest discussions about the nature of golf course architecture.  There is a continuum on which golfers fall regarding their approach to GCA.  On one extreme are those who view golf as an examination of the execution of golf shots. For want of a better term, they are technicians. The target should be clearly defined and the player who can make the best shots should win.  Elements of chance should be eliminated when possible.  The other end of the contiuum emphasizes decision making.  For these golfers, there should be a variety of ways to play a hole and the choice of options is at least as important as the execution of the shot.  Elements of chance are expected and even encouraged as something to consider.  Of course, most courses are a mix of these 2 approaches.  Moreover, a player who makes a "good" strategic choice for his ability must still execute a shot in order to gain maximum benefit.  But the difference remains.  A course like Old Mac (I have only played 10 holes and walked around the others prior to opening) is clearly well to the strategic side.  As such, it may be disconcerting to the "technician" who wants a defined target dictated to him.  It may fail to sufficiently reward a well played shot if the "wrong" decision was made in choosing a option.  The myriad of recovery possibilities may lessen the advantage for the well struck shot, particularly if that shot went to the wrong place.  How one feels about this is directly related to their view of GCA.  The vast majority of courses built 1950 until somewhere in the 90's favored the technicians' approach and thus a course like Old Mac is unfamiliar ro many players.  But it is obvious that those who are involved in the ratings are less tied to that approach.  This explains the high ratings.

[Jud_T]

All i know is many more penal hazards in the 40 mph winds we played in would have rendered the course virtually unplayable.

[Gib_Papazian]

     I went over every square inch of the golf course with George Bahto and then with Tom Doak - both playing it and walking. I understand that I'm probably not an objective evaluator on this particular subject. However, I do not care what anybody thinks. This golf course is one of the most amusing, whimsical wanders through Wonderland imaginable and when both George and my caddy told me on the 18th hole to aim 40 yards to the left of the pin, watching my ball scamper up the grade and tumble down  the Punchbowl towards the pin was an experience that nearly brought tears to my eyes.

     To start with a Double-Plateau, moving over the Sahara dune was an indescribable joy - almost as if we were wandering through golf history. I'm an enormous fan of the other three courses, but this one - with its width and wildly inventive strategies - just stands alone. There will be detractors for sure, but I know that C.B. is looking down (or up? ) from somewhere with great approval. Playing Old Mac was like walking into a perfect Black and White movie for me. It seemed real and unreal at the same time.

     In the end, I believe this is far and away the most playable for the "retail golfer" of the four on the property and certainly an essay in strategic design light years beyond any public access course in the States. I suppose it is possible to nitpick anything to death, but I cannot think of a single hole on the golf course that did not give me pause to really look hard at what was in front of me and force a decision of some sort.

     Standing on the tee over The Biarritz was a particular "Sound of Music Moment" and the angle of the swale reminded me of a cross between #9 at Yale for depth and the putting surface on #16 at North Berwick. The one aspect that sticks out in my mind is that despite Old Mac being a redux course, there was a fresh twist on nearly every classic arrangement. I've never seen anything remotely like the cottage cheese lumps guarding the Long Hole - nor the ripples in front of the Road Hole green encouraging a ricochet approach along the ground.

     Our group stood on the tee of the Short and burst out laughing at the sheer temerity of it. Where else in America are you going to find a cross between #6 at NGLA and MacKenzie's Sitwell Park finale? All with enough understanding of the game to keep the putting surface speeds at an appropriate pace to match the wild undulations. Any place else, it would only be a matter of time before some dimwitted G.M. or humorless DoG flattened out the green and demanded it Stimp at 11.

     Forrest Richardson did something similar - brilliantly I might add - at Peacock Gap in Marin County and three years later they have decided to blow up the four most outstanding greens and replace them with garden-variety puke. One thing you have to admit, Keiser has stones. Who  else lets an architect get away with a back nine with only two par-4 holes?

     In other words people, if nothing else, the golf world ought to celebrate the uniqueness of this latest offering. For a public access golf course, there is nothing remotely like it anywhere in the United States - a Macdonald course where a Plus-1 can play and have the same amount of fun and challenge as a 24 handicapper.