Formulas and designing for one shot at a time

[jeffwarne]

Sitting in an airport and thinking about this topic, Ive actually been thinking about it for the last week.
When did it become the norm in golf that a player should always be able to get to the hole? I know we design holes where the degree of difficulty in getting to the hole depends on the previous shot. But what's wrong with the rare hole where you just can't get close unless something miraculous happens? But where you leave your approach has great bearing on the difficulty of the next shot? There is still a target(s) and how you execute in getting to the target matters, but the best target is not the hole.  Was this ever a part of golf? If so, has it been lost due a focus on stroke play? 

As discussed earlier before, part of "the test", or better yet, "the fun", should reward the player smart enough to accept his circumstance and play his shot to a point where his NEXT shot can be played close or even in.
No different than what a shorter hitter faces on a majority of his shots.

Something to think about as players approach 400 yard drives-maybe driver is the strategic club on a certain 300 yard par 4 that is designed to accomodate an approach from the back of the green or over......

[BCrosby]

Interesting stuff.

Don writes:

"There is still a target(s) and how you execute in getting to the target matters, but the best target is not the hole.  Was this ever a part of golf? If so, has it been lost due a focus on stroke play?"

TD writes:

"...a lot of the difference in viewpoints is the difference between a match play mentality and a stroke play mentality."

While I agree generally with the above, the reference to "stroke play mentality" as being at the root of things obscures what I think is really going on. If everyone must play the same holes, then impossible to reach pins will come out in the wash. Everyone will post a higher score on that particular hole. So in theory, the "stroke play" outcomes of a given golfer should not bother him. Everyone faces the same challenges and it will even out.

But, in the real world, those sorts of "impossible" holes do upset people. A lot. Why? It's not a "stroke play" mentality that's causing the upset. It's the effect of par on people. If the par of a hole is 4, then by god that's a score I should have a reasonable chance of posting. And if I'm not given an achievable way of posting a par number, I'm ticked.

Even if they know that everyone else will face the same 'impossible' shot.

Bob   

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:

I'm not sure it's about par, either.  You are partly right, in that [in my experience] it's a lot easier to get away with a hole like this on a short par-4 or short par-5 than on a longer hole.  But, Don's example is about a situation where it's almost impossible to get close enough to make a BIRDIE ... and good players don't think that's kosher. 

In fact, there are Tour pros who don't think it's kosher for a par FIVE hole to have a pin they can't get at with their second shots.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I was trying to make a larger point. To that point I'm not sure changing the scale to 'birdie' matters much. It's a stronger group of golfers that are unhappy when birdies are too hard to get, but they are unhappy for the same reasons that less good golfers are unhappy when a par is made unreasonably difficult.

In both cases the root of the unhappiness is measuring your play against an abstract standard.

It's a useful way of thinking about what it means to call a hole "controversial". A hole is controversial to the extent it disrupts our scoring expectations based on the par of the hole on the scorecard. That is, no hole is intrinsically controversial. A hole is only controversial relative to a par number.


Bob  



 

[Ben Sims]

Has anyone really defined what is a "good shot?"  I don't think the argument comes down to par, or even cultural differences.  I believe that most golfers judge their shot too simply.  That is to say, they judge the shot quality only as it relates to the proximity to the hole that it results in and not what their next shot may bring.  I think by and large, most golfers think that a shot is better the closer it gets to the green, or the even the pin.  

I play golf with my father-in-law quite a bit when I visit in California.  We play with his usual group of 50-somethings and it surprise them that I don't hit my driver on every non-par 3.  They say I should capitalize on my length advantage over them every chance I get in our matches.  I tell them that I do, because I get to hit an 8 iron from 150 instead of them hitting a 5 iron.  They don't get it.  They think I should just hit it as far as I can and take my chances with a shorter club, no matter where I'm hitting it from.

I think that is the pervading feeling among most golfers.  They think the closer you get to the hole, regardless of slope or position, the better their shot is and the more they should be rewarded.  Nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion.

[JESII]

Isn't it fine to have a nearly impossible par for a scratch golfer o
nce in a while? I would bet this same hole could play a full stroke easier under certain conditions/setups than what Don's described...that variance within a single hole is what makes good courses great in my opinion.

I remember watching the guys play the '93 British Open and have 14 straight into a gale of wind and rain and need 3 full blasts to get home then I played in the '97 British Amateur there and it was firm and straight downwind and I hit a 2-iron to stay short of the ditch and chipped a 6-iron onto the green.

A good, thoughtful setup enhances whatever variety natural conditions offer.

[Tom_Doak]

Has anyone really defined what is a "good shot?"

Ben:

Good point.  Some of the ODG architects' books seemed to leave room for shots beyond the ability of any golfer of their own era:  Simpson referred to the +10 handicap man [if there will ever be such a player] and to the Tiger.  And MacKenzie's 11th rule of architecture was:

"The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play."

Imagine defending a TPC course that way!

[Kyle Harris]

Has anyone really defined what is a "good shot?"

Ben:

Good point.  Some of the ODG architects' books seemed to leave room for shots beyond the ability of any golfer of their own era:  Simpson referred to the +10 handicap man [if there will ever be such a player] and to the Tiger.  And MacKenzie's 11th rule of architecture was:

"The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play."

Imagine defending a TPC course that way!

I've long believed and taught others that a good way to understand a golf course/hole is to determine how resistant the course/hole is to shooting 54/3, respectively.

[John Kirk]

I think it's great when a golf hole is set up difficult, with a preferred tactical strategy for getting at the hole.  It's even better when the same hole can be set up to be relatively easy.  Yes, there are still narrow-minded American golfers who think every 450 yard hole should be an easy par if the player can hit a soft 4-iron into the center of the green.

For instance, #1 at Stone Eagle is 400 yards, a downhill drive and a slightly uphill approach.  Stone Eagle has a five day pin rotation, as some greens only have a few pins easy enough for the membership.  The #1 green is angled front right to back left, and the "0" pin is right of center, back against a big ridge.  If your approach shot finishes past the pin, you will make bogey, unless you can make a 25 foot uphill putt.  Even 3 foot par putts from anywhere but below the pin are treacherous.

You would not know this unless you have played the course with this pin.  I am compelled to give advice to my guests, the type of advice I dislike giving, as I like to let them just play the course.  But you can't see it; the approach is a few feet uphill and I really hate to see them discouraged right off the bat.

We've been discussing #14 at Bandon Trails on another thread.  The front pin is difficult to approach from anywhere, whether on the second shot or the sixth one.  Is that fun?  In the case of this hole, I believe the hole is more nerve wracking than intriguing.

I think the main objective is to create golf holes that are fun.  Sure, it's great to make people think about what they're doing, and hopefully the architecture will give visual clues aboutthe challenges that lie ahead.