[Don_Mahaffey]

We’ve probably all seen a golf telecast where the expert analyst puts a big red X where you can’t hit it and big green blob where the desired shot should end up. On most courses it’s fairly easy to mark these spots. Most red areas are obvious; deep bunkers, OB, water, trees…finding the trouble is not hard (obvious trouble being the biggest crutch in all of golf architecture), and spotting the garden spot is usually just as easy.  

Isn’t it a measure of the great golf courses of the world when these locations are not so easy to recognize? Where they change every day based on daily conditions, and where the hole location has a huge impact on the where red and green gets placed?

I know at Wolf Point the red and green areas move around a lot. Wind direction, hole and tee location, turf conditions, all those factors can change where you need to hit it if you have score in mind.

Isn’t the moving target a characteristic of the great courses of the world?

[Mac Plumart]

Don...

I think you are correct.  In fact, when I played The Old Course this type of stuff was prevelant on every hole.  Options galore and changing with the wind.  I think this makes interesting golf. 

Your "red x and green blobs" sounds like what I call target golf...and I find that boring.  This type of golf ends up being about how you are executing your swing on that particular day...that is all.  And this is fine from time to time.

But exciting, interesting, and fully engaging golf has options and choices that need to be made in addition to execution of your swing(at least in my opinion).

[jeffwarne]

Until golf's movers and shakers recognize that a "test of golf" doesn't have to mean dictating where to hit it, we'll continue to have many of our courses evaluated with clear cut red and green.

Part of the "test of golf" is alternative routes that players of various abilities, skills, and temperments, (particlarly in light of conditions that day) can take when playing a hole, as well as the use of angles and slopes which make knowledge of the course part of the test.

I can't think of a worse insult for a course than" it's all out in front of you"( or clearly marked red and green)

[Adam Clayman]

Until golf's movers and shakers recognize that a "test of golf" doesn't have to mean dictating where to hit it, we'll continue to have many of our courses evaluated with clear cut red and green.

Part of the "test of golf" is alternative routes that players of various abilities, skills, and temperments, (particlarly in light of conditions that day) can take when playing a hole, as well as the use of angles and slopes which make knowledge of the course part of the test.

I can't think of a worse insult for a course than" it's all out in front of you"( or clearly marked red and green)

Jeff, 2014 will not be here soon enough.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Mac,
target golf is probably a good description. I think on good courses the targets move around and on poorly designed courses, the targets are always in the same place.

The idea came to me while visiting with my son, a college freshman who plays on the golf team. His ball striking is greatly improved, but his scores are not improving at the same rate. I think its because of poor course management, (his coach agrees) and so like any meddling father, I'm trying to help him. We got aerials of all the courses he plays and marked the spots he needs to avoid and identified the targets he should aim for on each hole. It was incredibly easy exercise to locate the red X and green blob areas on all but one course. He's in Oklahoma and one of the courses he plays is an old Perry Maxwell design. Its the only course he plays where the daily hole location has some impact on what he needs to do off the tee. It's not so much that the red Xs move around as much as some yellow, caution, areas enter in. Areas where you can hit it and still play, but now you've shrunk the green blobs around the putting surface and grown the red X areas.

Probably doesn't make much sense to most who read this, but to me its an interesting way of breaking down a design.  

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

I'll agree with your idea, as long as you take the "always" out of your post, and recognize that the wind makes a huge difference in enforcing these zones.

For example, the poster child of a great hole on GCA is the 10th at Riviera.  That hole has a giant red X everywhere to the right of the axis of the green.  Great players CAN be more aggressive if the hole is up at the front of the green, but even then, it's at their own peril, and the red X only moves slightly at best.

At Crystal Downs, the red X's would move on most of the holes, depending on the wind and the hole location.

[Adam Clayman]

For example, the poster child of a great hole on GCA is the 10th at Riviera.  That hole has a giant red X everywhere to the right of the axis of the green.  Great players CAN be more aggressive if the hole is up at the front of the green, but even then, it's at their own peril, and the red X only moves slightly at best.

On Dan and Dave's tribute to the 10th at Riv, the 15th at Wild Horse, the green blob can move to the right if the wind is blowing at the player. It allows one to hold that sliver of a green with a well played high shot.

[Garland Bayley]

Won't the wind move the Xs on all courses? So, isn't it a separate factor. The measure is how many X's per hole and how much they move with movement of the flag on the green, is it not? Wind, or no wind?

[Tom_Doak]

Garland:

My point was that wind is a big factor in this.  Without it, you have to build some pretty severe greens for there to be a bunch of red X spots on the plan ... and if you do that, and then it's windy to boot, the course will be borderline unplayable.  But, if wind is a given, then you don't have to build things nearly as severe to make the architecture shine.

I haven't played or seen Wolf Point, but I assume that, being in Texas, it's reasonably windy.

[Garland Bayley]

Bunch of red Xs? Are we talking about all Xs on the same hole? Perhaps you can help me see how there would be a bunch. For example, with a Redan, I would see two red Xs. One for the high fade approach to the flag, another for the ground draw to the flag. Are we talking about significantly more red Xs than that?

[Bill_McBride]

Bunch of red Xs? Are we talking about all Xs on the same hole? Perhaps you can help me see how there would be a bunch. For example, with a Redan, I would see two red Xs. One for the high fade approach to the flag, another for the ground draw to the flag. Are we talking about significantly more red Xs than that?

I thought the red Xs were bad.    You describe the two most approved plays on the Redan.

[Garland Bayley]

Bunch of red Xs? Are we talking about all Xs on the same hole? Perhaps you can help me see how there would be a bunch. For example, with a Redan, I would see two red Xs. One for the high fade approach to the flag, another for the ground draw to the flag. Are we talking about significantly more red Xs than that?

I thought the red Xs were bad.    You describe the two most approved plays on the Redan.

Thanks Bill,

I read it wrong. I took Xs to be targets and blobs to be where the ball finished. I suppose I could blame my poor eyesight, but I just didn't pay close enough attention.
No wonder Tom confused me.

Just call me Vinnie Barbarino.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Garland:

My point was that wind is a big factor in this.  Without it, you have to build some pretty severe greens for there to be a bunch of red X spots on the plan ... and if you do that, and then it's windy to boot, the course will be borderline unplayable.  But, if wind is a given, then you don't have to build things nearly as severe to make the architecture shine.

I haven't played or seen Wolf Point, but I assume that, being in Texas, it's reasonably windy.

Tom, yes it's windy at WP. More so at certain times of the year, but the air is rarely still.

My point is a course like WP, where the greens are a bit on the wild side (some might say more than a bit) and tend to be firm, the Xs can move solely based on hole location. Throw in the wind and now its hard to even find the Xs. Sure a deep bunker or a creek is obvious, but there are places where a well struck approach can't hold a green when the hole is cut in a certain spot and the wind is pushing the ball. Even when the player realizes he's put himself in a tough spot and just tries to play to the fat of the green he's often left with a high probability of a three putt because he can't get it close and he's got some movement to deal with. I've seen some good players get very frustrated because they never considered the angle into the green and let the width lull them to sleep. 

Sitting with Ryan and going over the courses he plays in this way made me realize how one dimensional most courses are. Windy or not, with most courses the safe line of play does not change. The distance the ball goes may vary, but not the plan. Only when going over the Maxwell course did the green contours enter into the discussion. 

[Sean_A]

Don

Isn't your concept really just about f&f conditions.  I can think of loads of courses where the wind combined with f&f creates different no go zones depending on the direction of the wind.  I would also think that good hazard placement would really shine in these cases.  Sometimes a hazard makes no sense until one experiences different wind direction. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()