Strategic features--an in depth consideration

[TEPaul]

With some recent topics on bunkering and a tree in fairways and some other threads there has been some very good commentary recently on golf features, and holes and their strategic ramifications.

If we can assume that features available to the architect to create strategies are numerous and the combinations of the arrangements of those features are even more numerous it would be interesting to analyze a golf hole in real depth and to conclude some opinions if that hole is using it's features properly to accomplish all it can strategically!

As to the available features we can come up with, the most common, although there're many more are; certainly bunkers first, then greens with their orientations, internal slope and contour, water, rough, the use of trees or a tree, angles (doglegs, capes etc), OB, natural features indigenious to a site, width/narrowness, firmness, even the non-architectural/architecturally used feature--the wind! And there are many more!

And then take a hole that's been a known commodity and analyze it carefully--like Pebble's #18. The reason I pick that hole is because there's been some good analysis of it already on its use of trees--the single tree in the fairway on the drive and the tree to the right of the green and how those features make the hole play and how it would if they weren't used.

One John Bernhardt made good analysis and commentary on how those trees make the hole play really well strategically and one Chip Oat made the case that it would play even better without those trees on that hole. In my opinion, both of them made excellent cases on opposite sides of the strategic coin!

And to analyze a hole like this in depth I like Geoff Shackelford's "real world" detailing of the strategic results that any hole produces in tournament play. Pebble, like Augusta, is one of just a few courses that we've been able to see year in and year out so both courses and their holes are as good an analytical testing ground for strategic ramifications as you can find.

I'm no fan of the increased distance the ball is going but in my opinon because of that Pebble's #18 has actually been playing far more dramatic recently, and yes, more strategically interesting too! We all are familiar with the events like Tiger going at it a few years ago with an awesome 3 wood and last year Mickelson hooking a driver into the ocean at the moment of truth!

So let's look at those trees for a moment. Does the tree in the fairway create more strategy off the tee or less? Does it create more intensity in the player or less? Does it create more drama in the results of an entire tournament of tee shots? Personally I can't remember the position of that tree and if even Tiger needs to slide his tee shot by it on either side or if he can launch it over it with regularity and impunity--I don't think he can--so he has to deal with it in one of three ways--slide it by it on either side of lay up short of it with a set up angle for shot #2!

And more importantly the tree down by the green on the right! What does that do to the player's thinking on the 2nd shot? Obviously it narrows down the 2nd shot landing area  and very much brings the bunkering left and the ocean more into play. What if that tree wasn't there? I would assume the player would feel free to go much deeper down the right side and nearer the green with impunity. Sure there's a front bunker right guarding the green there but these guys don't seem to mind the short flip over a bunker with their 60 degree wedges! And they might not mind being in that bunker either if they weren't concerned about the push and having to then deal with that tree!

So it seems to me that tree greenside right gets them thinking not just about accuracy but also very much about club selection and distance to lay back in the event they push the 2nd shot and get too close and behind that tree at the wrong angle! And what about that tree greenside right when deciding to go all the way to the green in two? Does that shut down on that temptation? If it does that might not be good as there is definitely enough going on at the green-end to make the "go" option exciting, dramatic and determinant. But all that is basically balancing a tempting 2nd shot against 3rd shot strategic considerations and ramifications!

Purists might even say that tree greenside right is redundant golf "featuring" and strategically damps down the front bunker and the cant, angle, and narrowness of the green itself (which is a classic construction and orientation in and of itself)!

I also like Shackelford's basic test of a good golf hole. 1/ Look at the options--are they interesting and exciting and how many of them are there? 2/ How well do they actually function and how often are they used (an apparently  interesting option that really isn't used isn't interesting or a good option)? 3/ And the test of the quality and effectiveness of an option is the degree of temptation that it evokes! 4/ And basically all these things are analyzed and tested by the spectrum of results they actually produce--in this case the scoring spectrum!

So how do you all feel about #18 Pebble? Is it working better now then it used to because of the increased distance of the ball? Do those trees add to the strategies or detract from them? What would happen without them? Would bunkering on the right about 100yds out add to the intensity of the 2nd shot by alternating for the tree if the greenside tree was removed? Would the green itself need to be worked to keep the intensity if that tree was removed?

All interesting stuff for consideration and discussion and a great hole to think about strategic golf features--all of them--and how they can best be used and arranged together or separately for maximum effectiveness!

Another quick thought. Trees have been called for many decades "hazards in the sky" by the linksmen and those that don't advocate the strategic use of trees. But can those same people deny that today's good players hit the ball in the air all the time and certainly far more than the linksman golfer? Maybe because of the prevalence of the aerial game the architect should reconsider some good "hazard in the sky" for strategic use since that's where the ball is going these days! Would either or both these trees on Pebble's #18 be that today?

[A_Clay_Man]

Just some minor houskeeping first, There are two seperate trees on the right side of the 18th fairway. These may actually be closer to center when the fairway is extended for non-usga play. Under open conditions the trees are clearly rightside of fairway.
The first thing that strikes me is the irony in that the trees are definetly the lessor of a bunch of evils on this particular tee shot. As a matter of fact if you are looking to aim at something safe these two smallish trees are it.
The tree by the green is rarely in play and if struck, should be looked on as a blessing. Because if you didn't hit it or it wasn't there, you probably would be in the rightside(middle to back) bunker with a downhill Stillwater cove lurking sand shot. As I write this  I realize most of the trees, at Pebble, were startegically placed as visual aids, perhaps as targets like on Six or all these on 18. Yet they rarely come into play for the above avg. golfer. I can site examples on almost every hole but you have to know There has been considerable removal of some of the beauties with the advent of progress and you know who.  
    

[Tim_Weiman]

TE Paul:

I tend to agree with Adam that the trees on #18 don't have that much impact on professional level players or even low handicap amateurs.  I think they pretty much dismiss the trees on the tee shot, especially big hitters.  Then, I really can't see the greenside tree being much of a factor in the decision to go for the green (either way).

By contrast, I would imagine the trees do have more interest for the pretty good but not great player, say 10-15 handicap.
Such a player is less able to confidently place his tee shot and his second shot, thus the trees do come more into play, at least psychologically.  For example, such a player might bring the greenside tree into play for his third shot by being too conservative with his second (meaning he didn't risk going anywhere near the water).

I'm not one to advocate changes to classic courses, but your idea of putting fairway bunkers on the right side (say 100 to 150 yards out ) in place of the greenside tree is interesting to consider.  Would it have much impact on the big hitters?  Obviously, not.  But, for many players, it could present more to think about.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

In a perfect world, with the H. Chandler Egan bunkering, the 18th at Pebble would be a monster today. If I remember right, there are some bunkers missing from that original scheme, coupled with that knarly rough-edged look which is the entire point of putting thought into a players head. "Avoid me at all costs!"

Adam hits it right on the head. The trees unfortunately are nothing more then aiming points for the normal clientele that plays Pebble, but you also nail it in the fact that the hole is still strategic for the best in the world, today, even with the equimpment. How many times have you seen the pro's hit right of the trees on the 18th? It would seem like most play that right side.

But then I think of Hal Irwin, playing a mystfying dumb shot on the left, going into the cove only to be saved by some intruding rock, ricoceting it back on to the fairway. He went on to win the tournament. Talk of strategy? How about blind luck!

But that is the beauty of the game. Making a strategic choice and living with the results. It all gets pretty damn exciting!

[Lou Duran]

I agree with numerous Golden Age architects that trees are beautiful to look at but best kept on the periphery of playing areas.  Of course, I am from the school which prefers associating results with skill rather than serendipity.  A tree or small group of trees turning a hole is fine as long as it is not repeated frequently over 18 holes.  Concerning PB #18, the trees affecting the drive bring a substantial element of luck to well struck shots at a potentially crucial time.   While the trees may cause a lot of thought from the tee and provide some excitment to the spectator, they can exert too great a penalty.  If something is needed there, perhaps a bunker or some mounds would suffice (forcing a longer third shot to the very difficult green).  The tree by the green is less of a problem to me because the second shot is not overly long and should require some precision.  Also, most anyone going for the green on the second shot would be doing so from the left side of the fairway, and from there, this tree would only affect those very poorly struck.        

[TEPaul]

Lou:

It's a small point and probably a meaningless one but I seem to recall that when the floodgates seemed to open on Pebble's #18 with the pros attacking that green in two it was Tiger who did it first a few years ago! And I seem to recall that he did it from the right rough or the right transition area off the fairway on the right and to the right of that big tree. Also I don't know that I would call it not a long second shot because if Tiger Woods has a 3 wood in his hands the shot is long in any case!

But hey, it probably is meaningless for analyzing the strategies of #18 since Woods is anything but representative. Actually I watched a good interview with Tiger the other day on the Oprah show and she asked him how he pulls off these incredible shots and he said he wasn't real sure about that but he thought maybe he had an unusual ability to visualize creative shots and just go with that vision and feel. And then he proceeded to answer somebody's question in the audience about the most memorable shots he'd visualized and hit. Then Oprah asked him what he would do if he wasn't able to visualize the shot. He thought about that seriously for a minute, smiled and said; "I'd hit it anyway!"

But just like "Tiger-proofing", looking at strategies through Woods's eyes probably ain't that worthwhile! The kid might go for the green if his ball was sitting on top of that tree in the middle of #18 and if he hit the green it wouldn't surprise me after some of the things he's pulled off!

[A Clay Man]

My experiences have shown that the penal aspect of the TWO SMALL trees off the drive are not that penal. Granted if you are right up against one of them (seen it) you are as screwed as the penguin on the tellie.But, if your over a couple feet away the shotmaker should be able to create a shot playable to near the 150-180 mark.
Also, If the open didn't prove that most of these guys really don't go for that green in two, Jack being the only one to even try as I recall. While I have seen the Big Cheeseman do it. It was down wind and he had to hit two monster beauties.
I believe the reasons most of the big boys choose to play smart there is the risk reward factor due mostly to the narrow opening of the apron or approach ramp and most importantly that is more uphill than most think.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I guess I need to get the ole course guide out. I am fairly sure the tree by the green on 18 does significantly influence how you play your 2 nd shot. If you want to be 100 yards or less from the green then you have a precarious shot with the ocean and the trap on the left creating a narrow path to land in. Usually the wind makes it even more challenging. If the tree was not there then you have a good bit more room to leave it out to the right ands yes the trap is in play but more often than not you can use the wind from the right to help settle the shot. That tree has almost always put a 5 wood or long iron in my hand for the safer 125 shot. the trees of the tee are only a problem if you hit a moderly crapy shot and get stimied.

[Mark_Fine]

There is a lot more to worry about on the tee shot then those two small trees in the middle right of the fairway.  The pros don't even see them and the rest of us just use them as aiming points if anything at all.  My feeling is that they present little if any penal or strategic value.  The tree by the green (it's dead, did they decide what they are going to do about it??) doesn't have much strategic value either.  You have to be either really bad or really unlucky if it causes you much concern.  
Mark

[Lou Duran]

Tom:

I was not thinking of Tiger when responding.  He is too extraordinary, in my opinion, to be considered in discussions of strategy and design.   I believe that most other people that have a go at PB #18 on their second shot do so from the left side of the fairway.  I've only played PB once, nearly 20 years ago, and the trees made a distinct impression off the 18th tee.  Perhaps Mark is a highly accomplished player, but looking from the tee my thought process was a) don't pull it, b) don't push it OB, c) don't get stymied behind the trees (not meant to provoke Patrick M .  In my case at least, the trees added strategic value to the hole, though I think that they introduce an unnecessay element of luck.   I think that John accurately describes the impact of the tree guarding the right side of the green.  For us mere mortals, we can't comfortably cozy up the second shot for a pitch from the neck between the wall and the area guarded by the tree.  So we have to lay-up further back, and my recollection is that the green is no picnic.  In my opinion, this tree adds great interest and strategy to the hole.

[A_Clay_Man]

John you are correct that if you are forced to lay-up too far the probability is you will be going right towards the rough where that tree will be in play. But even then creativity will be your strongest asset. I think the  rt. roughline tapers towards the left making that area from say 100 in to become a very narrow spot.  My best drive there was a 250 yarder with 275 to go. I had driver in my hand because I sure couldn't go left with it. The best caddie on the planet, Ray Huges came over and said hit a 5 iron 175 you will have a 100 left. Needless to say I listened and had 111 left. (At the apex of the elbow of the seabunker)

[RJ_Daley]

 Thanks alot!  Special thanks to TE Paul, for his opening dissertation of how to play PB-18    If I ever get a chance to play it, I will have so many swing thoughts in my head, I'll probably just skewer myself into the ground or spin out of control and fall in the ocean     Don't I have enough problems to think about  Maybe I'll just try to knock 4 or 5 short irons up the middle and 2 or 3 putt and call it a day  :-/

[A_Clay_Man]

Trust me Dick, You will be much too giddy to have any swing thoughts. Use that to your advantage and be the ball.

[Mark_Fine]

"You will be much too giddy to have any swing thoughts" - That is almost precisely my point.  Trust me, standing on that that 18th tee, those trees are of your very least concern.  If you are that good to worry about them, then you REALLY don't need to worry about them if you catch my drift!  

A Clay Man can comment better but I'd guess those fairway trees impact one in a hundred golf shots at best.  

Again the tree by the green is a slightly different story but once again, there is much more to worry about on the second shot than that dead tree!  The same goes for the third.
Mark

Note:  I am basing these comments not just on my own game.  It's a cardinal sin to judge courses just on how you play the game!  

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I think it was the non-hook that got my favorite lefty into trouble on 18  

You said: ...."looking at strategies through Woods's eyes probably ain't that worthwhile"..........
Strategy at his level has a whole new meaning and I'm pretty sure I mostly agree with that, but isn't Woods assessing the hole and relating that into what he wants to get out of it, just like anyone else? If we look at strategies through the eyes of all players, even the best, can it help us to understand how well rounded a hole is? I think it's a tribute to the design, and by extension the strategy, when the best in the world don't take the hole lightly.  

[TEPaul]

JimK;

I was being facetious really saying that it wasn't worthwhile looking at #18 Pebble through the strategic eyes of Woods. Of course it's very interesting and worthwhile but obviously not that representative. It might be though for looking at the future if the ball doesn't slow down some day!

Frankly, sometimes a really good course can show you some really sophisticated stuff in its design watching a real good player play it. I've played Pine Valley quite a bit over the years here and mostly tournaments and I always see something new but the couple of times I had to play a match against Jay Sigel were the times I remember learning the most about the course just because of the way he hits the ball and also the way he plays the course because not only is he goddamned good but he also knows the course extremely well!

I drew him in my first match in my first year in the Crump!!--how about that for starting luck? In case you think I'm saying I'm any good, I'm not! I've lost a couple of singles matches 7 and 6 in my career and that was one of them!! It was a helluva a lesson though and I saw some cool stuff about the course from him that day and some very sophisticated risk/reward nuances!

There was another time at Pine Valley in the Crump I think I may have posted on here long ago (can't remember now) which was a match that taught me far more about match play golf and competition than any other match of my career. I drew Jim Holtgrieve, the Walker Cupper from St. Louis who is strong and then some. I'd never played him before but I'd watched him play a bit and watching him hit some warming up on the range was giving me a distinct inferiority complex!

Somehow I convinced myself that there was just no other way than for me to play my own little game that I knew I could play and just not get too into how he was hitting it! He hit his 1 iron about 50yds by my driver all day, BTW. So I played my own little game like I was alone hoping not to get embarrased in the match and at the turn I was 1 up on him. Basically I putted beautifully and I got dormie on #15, 3 up with 3 to play. I conceded him a par on #16 and I had about a 30ft simple birdie putt and just thought, this is amazing that I hung in there and now I've got him. That's just about all I was thinking about when I hit that first putt (just trying to get it close BTW) and I hit it about 5ft past and all I was thinking about on the comeback was how could I have done that at a time like this? I missed it and he came alive like a light bulb and birdied #17 & #18! I could see the whole revolting mess unfolding and I just had no confidence left in me and he birdied #2 to win.

Not only did I learn more interesting stuff that day about the course watching him play it but I also learned never have thoughts like I did on #16 until the deal was over and I never have again. If I ever find my concentration wandering in a match I think of that time on #16! It was a great lesson, painful though!

Pine Valley has the capacity to teach you so many kinds of lessons about the game and architecture too!!