"That's just silly" - 17 at TPC Scottsdale

[DMoriarty]

To look at it another way, the USGA may have done our studies for us in they way they slope courses.   By definition courses with higher slopes are those which produce the widest range of scores between varying skill levels.  Are such courses necessarily the most strategic?  I don't think so.  Rather they often are the most penal and most forced, with plenty of execute or die scenarios. Execute or die is not really a choice, is it?

[rjsimper]

Now we're getting off topic. This is hardly execute-or-die. This is a 330 yard par 4. You could skull a 3 iron off the tee, chunk a PW second shot to the front portion of the green, and 2 putt for par.

This isn't a 490 yard par 4 with a creek short and a lake long with a crowned green.

[Ed Oden]

David, I've never understood attempts to treat strategic and penal architecture as exclusive concepts.  To me, they are the yin and yang of quality design.  It's hard to have one without the other.

[DMoriarty]

Ed,  I agree to the extent that you mean that with strategic design there are potential costs and benefits associated with our choices and ability to execute accordingly.  My disagreement is with this notion that a wide scoring spectrum provides a good indicator of strategic architecture.  A wide scoring spectrum usually indicates that a penalty component is present, whether or not there are meaningful choices.  And sometimes with some of our most strategic holes the costs and benefits can be too subtle to show up in a wide scoring spectrum.  
_____________________________________________

Ryan,  I didn't mean to say or imply it was execute or die, nor did I mean to imply it wasn't strategic.  My point is that the wide scoring spectrum is indicative of the penalty component, whether or not the hole is actually strategic.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the thread Ryan.  From watching on television the hole looked brilliant if laying up was a more effective option on that particular day.  Because I did not see anyone lay up, I could not tell whether or not the players were making poor decisions or there was a significant drawback to doing so that made it unreasonable alternative.

[BCrosby]

David -

Whew. Glad to hear you are not going to go all ad hominem on me.

To return to our regular programming, you say:

"In short, all you are measuring is the degree of punishment for a miss. Your measure has little or nothing to do with whether the hole is actually strategic."

No. You have it upside down. Scoring spreads measure the effectiveness of the temptations to take playing risks. Good strategic holes present delicious, irresistible temptations. That's why we think they are great holes. We love the sweet anxiety produced. The effectiveness of those temptations is a function of the architecture of the hole. That means that some players, being tempted to take such risks, will succeed and be rewarded with under par scores. Others will fail and notch over par scores. Think the creek on the 13th at ANGC. On such holes there tend to be, relatively, fewer scores in the middle of the scoring range, and, again relatively, more scores at the ends (both low and high) of the scoring range.

Now let's take a 'penal' hole (a misnomer in my book, but I'll stick with the vernacular). Such holes tend to have narrower scoring ranges because fewer players are tempted to take risks. So what you get are scores bunched around par and relatively few scores at the extremes of the scoring spectrum.

Among a field of good players, it is simply not true that "[h]oles that take a large penalty for a mistake of execution produce wide scoring ranges". Good players (say, the Masters field) are good because they are good at avoiding large penalties for mistakes of execution  - UNLESS the architecture of the hole tempts them to take on risks that the hole does not obligate them to take.

Let me put that slightly differently. Good players will make mistakes of execution. That will always account for some fraction of over par scores on all holes.

But certain holes induce good players to take on risks they don't have to take on. The inducement to do so being that by taking on additional risks they think they have a reasonable shot at an under par score. The heavily weighted ends of the scoring barbell on good strategic holes are populated by the scores of those players. The barbell scoring range is a by-product of the fact that players took on risks that they were not compelled to take on. Some get rewarded, some get punished.

You will always have some higher scores due to simple mistakes of execution. But you get an additional set of higher scores due to players who voluntarily take on risks they had the option of avoiding. The difficulty of the hazards is irrelevant. What matters is whether players elect to engage hazards they are not obligated to engage.

On the 13th at ANGC, everyone has the option of laying up short of the creek and playing a safe wedge into the green. The greatness of the hole is that players are willing to take on the much harder shot of clearing the creek and holding the green from 220 yards back down the fw. What creates the scoring spread is not the difficulty of the creek. It's difficulty can be easily by-passed if the player wants to. The hole's wide scoring is due to the brilliance of a design that tempts players to risk the creek even though they are not required to do so.

Bob

  

 

[Sean_A]

Bob

I don't really get your logic.  Water crossing a hole as it does on #13 ANGC is by nature a penal feature.  Just as it is on #17 Sawgrass.  The strategic element you introduce to the hole is based on the par - meaning #13 is so-called strategic because the guy can choose when to cross the water while #17 is not because the player is asked to cross the water on the tee.  Essentially, that tee shot and the third at ANGC are the same shot when deciding on where the hole falls in the strategic/penal spectrum.  None of this means the holes discussed can be very good or great even, but there can be no doubt they are penal by nature due to the dictated shot requirement - surely one of the hall marks of a penal shot.  

Ciao

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, I'm not sure I agree that the presence of water makes a hole penal.  I am not sure anyone in the Masters would call 13 penal.  Just because there can be a bad ending for a poorly stuck nor thought out shot doesn't make a hole penal.  17 at Sawgrass I would, however, call penal.  There is only one option.

[DMoriarty]

Ad hominem attacks?  I thought we were trying to leave TEPaul and his M.O. out of this . . .

Trying to spice up the theory with references to "irresistible temptation" and "sweet anxiety" doesn't really alter the fundamental shortcoming with the scoring spread theory.  I said, all you are measuring is the degree of punishment for a miss, whether or not the hole is strategic. 

Sean mentions the 17th at Sawgrass and it highlights the shortcomings of the theory.  But make the hole longer, the island smaller and green less interesting and the example would be even better.  Such a hole would produce a large scoring spread yet with no real choice.  The antithesis of strategic architecture.

[BCrosby]

Sean says:

"Essentially, that tee shot and the third at ANGC are the same shot when deciding on where the hole falls in the strategic/penal spectrum.  None of this means the holes discussed can be very good or great even, but there can be no doubt they are penal by nature due to the dictated shot requirement - surely one of the hall marks of a penal shot."

Let's see.

You think the 3rd shot into the 13th at ANGC after a layup is the same shot as the 17th at TPC? Ooookaay. 

You think the 13th at ANGC is a penal hole "by nature"? Because it dictates shot choices?

I'll take you seriously. Following your logic, (i) a hole that has a "dictated shot requirement" is a penal hole; (ii) all holes require at least one shot be made towards the green; therefore (iii) all holes are penal. Q.E.D. I feel foolish. I had no idea this golf architecture stuff was so simple.

I understand how much fun it can be to play the iconoclast every now and again. But it also has a downside....

Bob



 



 

[DMoriarty]

One of the greatest strategic holes of which I am aware is Riviera 10th.   As I mentioned above I ran the stats one year (2004) to check on this this theory, and posted them.  I don't have the stats for other years (if anyone does I'd love to see them) but here are the stats for Riviera's 10th hole for that particular year . . .

Eagles:     3  (0.68 %)
Birdies: 134  (30.32 %)
Pars:     265  (59.95 %)
Bogeys:   37  (8.37 %)
Doubles:   2   (0.45 %)
Others:     1   (0.23 %)

As you can see, the scores are bunched tightly at birdie and par.  Hardly the "wide scoring spectrum" one ought to see if this theory holds true. The reason is simple.  The hole lacks the severely penal feature of a lake, pond, creek, o.b., etc.  

So does this mean that Riviera No. 10 is not a great strategic golf hole?   Of course not.  Does it mean this theory is fatally flawed?  I think so.  

[Ken Moum]

But certain holes induce good players to take on risks they don't have to take on. The inducement to do so being that by taking on additional risks they think they have a reasonable shot at an under par score. The heavily weighted ends of the scoring barbell on good strategic holes are populated by the scores of those players. The barbell scoring range is a by-product of the fact that players took on risks that they were not compelled to take on. Some get rewarded, some get punished.

If it's your argument that the 17th in Phoenix doesn't do that, I think you are underestimating the design.  I've spent sometime in the skybox next to 17 and the fact that it is drive-able absolutely does entice a bunch of players to do something the shouldn't do.

Over the years, the guys who drive the green have made lots of birdies, some eagles, and even an albatross or two.  But those who take enough club to get on the green and then bail out to the right leave themselves a really, really tough up and down.

If they all laid up with an iron, and pitched on the green from the front there'd be a whole lot fewer big numbers, and they'd still make a fair number of birdies.  But in the era of bomb and gouge they simply don't think like that.

Ken

[jeffwarne]

Bob

I don't really get your logic.  Water crossing a hole as it does on #13 ANGC is by nature a penal feature.  Just as it is on #17 Sawgrass.  The strategic element you introduce to the hole is based on the par - meaning #13 is so-called strategic because the guy can choose when to cross the water while #17 is not because the player is asked to cross the water on the tee.  Essentially, that tee shot and the third at ANGC are the same shot when deciding on where the hole falls in the strategic/penal spectrum.  None of this means the holes discussed can be very good or great even, but there can be no doubt they are penal by nature due to the dictated shot requirement - surely one of the hall marks of a penal shot.  

Ciao

Sean,
Are you really comparing a 135-140 yard tee shot to an island green often in spring wind conditions, to the 13th at augusta where not only do you decide which shot to take on the creek, but also from what yardage (depending upon how heroic/strategic you were with your drive )and what angle if you choose to lay up-both of which are likely to change daily with the pin placement.  You almost never have to worry about laying up into a divot because the choices are so varied and the layup area so large,
One hole is incredibly strategic and can also be heroic as well as penal.
the other's just stupid

and 13 would be just as strategic as a par 4, unless a player is stupid as well

[Sean_A]

Sean says:

"Essentially, that tee shot and the third at ANGC are the same shot when deciding on where the hole falls in the strategic/penal spectrum.  None of this means the holes discussed can be very good or great even, but there can be no doubt they are penal by nature due to the dictated shot requirement - surely one of the hall marks of a penal shot."

Let's see.

You think the 3rd shot into the 13th at ANGC after a layup is the same shot as the 17th at TPC? Ooookaay.  

You think the 13th at ANGC is a penal hole "by nature"? Because it dictates shot choices?

I'll take you seriously. Following your logic, (i) a hole that has a "dictated shot requirement" is a penal hole; (ii) all holes require at least one shot be made towards the green; therefore (iii) all holes are penal. Q.E.D. I feel foolish. I had no idea this golf architecture stuff was so simple.

I understand how much fun it can be to play the iconoclast every now and again. But it also has a downside....

Bob

Bob

If you want to equate a shot over water compared to an open shot to green and say they are both dictated - thats fine with me.  It doesn't help the discussion,  but its fine with me.    

Do you have a better definition for penal other than a forced shot over a water or a bowling alley shot between bunkers, water, harsh rough?   Think of how your grandma would play the 13th hole and then tell me the water doesn't put this hole squarely in the penal camp?  Because one can inch the lay-up indefinitely to the edge of the water before taking on the penal aspect of the hole doesn't therefore make it a strategic hole.  Sure it adds strategy and slides it more toward the strategic end of the spectrum, but not so much that we can say the carry shot doesn't exist - can we?   Honestly, if a forced carry over water isn't penal, what is?  

Lets us not forget, that I am merely defining the nature of hole, not making a pronouncement on its quality.  I have never been one to believe penal=bad and strategic =good.  Both ends of the spectrum are necessary to create the most interesting courses.

Ciao

[Pete Blaisdell]

I'm not a big fan of TPC tracks but Scottsdale is pretty good. Alot of " busy " holes, risk and reward at every turn. The 17th is not in the same class as the 10th at Riviera but I like it, it breeds excitement. If it was the 4th, 8th or 11th , for arguments sake, it might not have the same lustre and impact but as the 17th coming down the stretch, it's perfectly placed. I like the hole, love the 5 pars-a good course that makes the event.

[BCrosby]

Ken Moum -

I am trying (apparently without much success) to say the opposite of what you think I am saying. In short, we agree about the 17th at TPC.

David -

The TEP Conjecture doesn't "prove" anything. Where did you get that idea?

Scoring spreads are a piece of evidence that, along with other evidence, help to confirm (or raise questions about) our pre-existing intuitiions about the strategic virtues of a hole. I think they are very useful data points and can be helpful when talking about architecture. Much more than scoring averages, scoring spreads tell us a great deal about how holes are actually played. Which tells us something useful about the effectiveness of their architectural features.

I am delighted you posted spreads for the pros for 10th from Riviera from 2004. Let's assume, arguendo, that the spreads have been something like that over the long run.

What do the numbers tell us? Scores bunched around par. Given what we know about the architecture of the hole and assuming normal distributions of pros playing aggressively and normal distributions of pros missing shots, it tells me that the downside to missed shots is not big. That's why you see so many pars.

That is, the risks perceived by the pros to aggressive play don't seem to be very scary. Even if they miss, recoveries for pars are routinely pulled off. Which is another way of saying that for the pros, the strategic playing choices they confront are no longer terribly challenging.

That confirms for me an intuition I've had for a long time that the modern pro game has taken the strategic teeth out of many iconic strategic holes. That's not an original thought. It's been noted by any number of people about any number of iconic Golden Age strategic holes.

Scoring spreads are just one piece of the data that leads me to that conclusion. I've watched how pros playe the hole. I have a sense of how far they now hit it, how well they use highly lofted wedges, how almost all pros can now driveswell up the left side of the fw, thus opening the green and taking the greenside bunkers out of play and so forth.

You may feel differently about how the pros play the 10th. That's fine. But I think the spreads align well with what I see on the ground and how modern day pros largely ignore the wonderful architetural features of the 10th. In short, the utlity of the TEP Conjecture is that it helps to bring all that into better focus by way of something more concrete than your gut feel vs. my gut feel.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sat at that hole all day last year.  Didn't see anyone chip into the pond from the right. Not sure one shot makes for a discussion about what is fair, scoring spreads, or what not.

Most of the pros I know understand a hole like that and like them -

if you play agressive and hit the green, eagle and birdie are yours.

if you play agressive but bail out right, the green sloping away makes for a delicate chip. 

If you play conservative in front of the bunker, its a lot easier chip, but birdie may be harder.

If you play conservative and hit the fw bunker, it might be a lot harder to birdie, or not.

I think one thing missing in the argument about penalty vs strategy here is the pure distance involved. 

ANGC is reachable in two by almost all good players.  Eagle is always a possibility if you hit the green in two.  The creek is proper because you can drop and still make five from about 40 yards.

Riv 10 is longer relative to getting on the green AND you really can only hit the left quarter of it.  Thus, since the green doesn't open up for the drive to reach it there aren't as many eagle chances as you would expect.  I also believe that the sand bunkers around the green, with their "half stroke penalty" (for typical tour pros with 45-50% up and down rates) keeps the scoring range tighter on Riv 10.  If they miss, they have half a chance to still make birdie.

Not that it isn't a good strategic hole, because it is, but its not strategically designed for a wide spread.  Turning the green to the tee would create a larger share of eagles, and since the safe shot would be coming over a bunker, probably raise the high end, too.

Net, net, scoring spread could probably be increased by both strategic design and degree of penalty.  I have argued a few times that some forum members think there should always be more penalty to sand bunkers, but obviously, the stronger the penalty, the less the temptation.  Just from tour pros I know, they would have to rate their chances of gaining a stroke at 66%/2 to 1 to even try a shot.  Put a penalty of two strokes or stroke and distance on it, I suspect the temptation goes way down.  It all works together and scoring spread is a result of lots of factors.

[DMoriarty]

The TEP Conjecture doesn't "prove" anything. Where did you get that idea?

Huh? I never wrote this.  Despite your putting the word "'prove'" in quotes it is not my word.  Perhaps your time would be better spent addressing what I have actually written.  For example, why not address the island green concept?  Such holes produce exactly the type of wide scoring spectrum you equate with strategy, yet they are anything but strategic.  

As for your conjecture about Riviera 10, you miss the point in much the same way as your "TEP Conjecture."  The 10th at Riviera is subtle.  It doesn't beat the golfer over the head with a penal feature.   It doesn't need to. Effective strategic architecture need not always threaten to knock the crap out of the golfer.   

You wrote "the risks perceived by the pros to aggressive play don't seem to be very scary."  Yet in 2004 only about 30 percent of the field went for the green from the tee.   Seventy percent of the field played away from a reachable par four, yet you think the hole had lost its strategic teeth? You and I have very different understandings of strategy.    I am surprised you would resort to knocking one of the truly great strategic holes in golf in order to prop up this theory of yours.

[Matthew Petersen]

That's a wonderful hole, but not a very good pin position. I don't think it's unfair, but it frankly teeters on the edge of playability for the best players in the world ... they sure don't ever put the pin back there for the average shmoes playing the course today and for the next 360 days of the year.

That said, the hole still worked for those players on Saturday. Huh played a brave shot straight to the front of the green so he had straight-on chip at the hole, knocked it to 4 feet, and made birdie. IBF kept saying he didn't know how lucky he was to have stayed out of the water but it seemed a lot simpler to stay dry by being behind the hole rather than to the left of it. The key was having that straight-on shot at the hole rather than having to come back at it from the right after a drive that bailed away from the water. Levin also took a brave line and was rewarded.

[Bill_McBride]

The difference between #17 Sawgrass and #13 ANGC is that at Augusta the player decides when and how long the shot over water will be, and from what angle the shot will be played if he lays up.   At Sawgrass there no options other than club selection and where to tee up between the markers.

Augusta strategic, Sawgrass penal.

[Kalen Braley]

Without getting into it all the extra nicities that this thread has brought out...

...but since when was anyone guaranteed to be able play their next shot at the pin?  He was out of position, why not come out sideways to the fat of the green.  He could have still easily saved par.


He played with fire and he got burnt....simple as that.

[DMoriarty]

For comparison sake, here are the numbers from this year for the 17th at TPC Scottsdale.

Eagles - 6   
Birdies -126
Pars - 200   
Bogies - 78   
Others - 9

A wider scoring spectrum than the 2004 numbers at Riviera 10, so should we conclude that the 17th at TPC Scottsdale is a better strategic hole?   More strategic? Or should we acknowledge the obvious -- the wide scoring spectrum at the 17th at TPC Scottsdale results from the presence of a lake.  Penalty strokes at Riviera's 10th are rare, but that is hardly reason to knock it.

Don't get me wrong.  The 17th at TPC Scottsdale may be a very good hole, and a very strategic hole.  But the measure of the good hole ought not depend on the presence of severe penalties.
______________________________________

The difference between #17 Sawgrass and #13 ANGC is that at Augusta the player decides when and how long the shot over water will be, and from what angle the shot will be played if he lays up.   At Sawgrass there no options other than club selection and where to tee up between the markers.

Augusta strategic, Sawgrass penal.

Bill McBride,

I agree. Yet both holes produce wide scoring spectrums.  While one hole is strategic and the other penal, both feature a prominent penal feature (a water hazard) in proximity to the green.  Wide scoring spectrums are more indicative of prominent penal features than they are of strategic merit. In contrast, holes without prominent penal features may be excellent strategic golf holes, but they will not produce wide scoring spectrums.

[rjsimper]

That's a wonderful hole, but not a very good pin position. I don't think it's unfair, but it frankly teeters on the edge of playability for the best players in the world ... they sure don't ever put the pin back there for the average shmoes playing the course today and for the next 360 days of the year.

That said, the hole still worked for those players on Saturday. Huh played a brave shot straight to the front of the green so he had straight-on chip at the hole, knocked it to 4 feet, and made birdie. IBF kept saying he didn't know how lucky he was to have stayed out of the water but it seemed a lot simpler to stay dry by being behind the hole rather than to the left of it. The key was having that straight-on shot at the hole rather than having to come back at it from the right after a drive that bailed away from the water. Levin also took a brave line and was rewarded.

So having said that, what makes it a bad pin position? You've just stated exactly what I've said as well...that the guys who conceived and executed properly were rewarded. Sounds good to me!

[jeffwarne]

That's a wonderful hole, but not a very good pin position. I don't think it's unfair, but it frankly teeters on the edge of playability for the best players in the world ... they sure don't ever put the pin back there for the average shmoes playing the course today and for the next 360 days of the year.

That said, the hole still worked for those players on Saturday. Huh played a brave shot straight to the front of the green so he had straight-on chip at the hole, knocked it to 4 feet, and made birdie. IBF kept saying he didn't know how lucky he was to have stayed out of the water but it seemed a lot simpler to stay dry by being behind the hole rather than to the left of it. The key was having that straight-on shot at the hole rather than having to come back at it from the right after a drive that bailed away from the water. Levin also took a brave line and was rewarded.

So having said that, what makes it a bad pin position? You've just stated exactly what I've said as well...that the guys who conceived and executed properly were rewarded. Sounds good to me!

On saturday,
three of the top 6 on the leaderboard birdied it.
a couple in the last few groups bogied it.
If it were 495 and you read the scorecards, you wouldn't blink.

I enjoyed watching IBF say on Sunday when players hooked it in the water 40 yards left of the pin say that "they hadn't even played a bad shot"
Without the accent he'd be scrubbing clubs somewhere.........
and then Stanley hooks a SW from the desert because he could only swing out well to the right of his target from the junk, and he and Faldo couldn't believe it.
take a SW, close the face, take it inside, hit down on it and close the face more, and see if it doesn't jump left-both off the face and on the ground, particularly into green sloped left.
Faldo I can understand, he's used to playing from the fairway....

[Tom Yost]

The difference between #17 Sawgrass and #13 ANGC is that at Augusta the player decides when and how long the shot over water will be, and from what angle the shot will be played if he lays up.   At Sawgrass there no options other than club selection and where to tee up between the markers.

Augusta strategic, Sawgrass penal.

Agreed.  Not to mention, it is possible to hit long or left of the green at AGNC #13, not so with Sawgrass #17.