[TEPaul]

DMoriarty:

Ironically, one who is extremely interested in the concept of design for the beginning caliber of player to encourage him to understand the basic ramifications of strategy and such in golf and architecture is Frank Thomas (ex USGA tech director). He firmly believes that many of the courses built today (and maybe of any era) are far too demanding and difficult for the beginning player and that courses should be built where beginners are able to succeed more often and build up the confidence to learn to proceed to the next levels confidently. He thinks some courses are like asking a beginning driver to get on the track during the Indy 500.

[Bob_Huntley]

Let me get this straight. A hack can think his way around the hazards presented to him by the architect?  I am not sure what exalted bunch of golfers you people have seen lately, but if you go out to Rancho Canada here in Carmel Valley, I can assure you that a goodly number of players have absolutely no idea where their shots are going. Surely, good architecture must be aimed at the fairly accomplished player with leniency afforded the dud.

As someone mentioned earlier, ponds in front of tees and carries of over a hundred yards across ravines and barrancas does not a good test make.

[ChipRoyce]

My quick answer.

No, strategy doesn't matter for hacks. Hacks need a pretty course, one that's top ranked or has good looking cart girls dispensing many, beers with substantial clevage.

However, I'd argue strategy does matter in the following situations:

1) Private clubs with only one course. If you're an avid golfer and regularly play one club, you notice strategy. Strategy, IMHO, allows you to take different routes, different types of shots, etc... esp. in varying weather conditions. Strategy = variety = release from monotony.

2) Better golfers and those that asipre to be one. A person who truly works the ball will appreciate multiple routes to the green. Do I play a long draw that affords me a shorter route to the green? Do I play a high fade to be on the right side of the fairway allowing me a low running shot up the throat of a firm green?

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I hear what you're saying because at one time or the other all golfers were "hacks." However, with that said let's also realize that many people who come into golf today have little understanding on just what it is they are going to experience.

When I see "hacks" run to the back tees and then loudly proclaim a course is not fair because there inferior play cannot handle the demands presented then all I hear from their mouths is ignorance.

The architect should certainly assist in a design so that the greatest number of players can enjoy an appropriate challenge for their ability level. However -- some people have "zero" ability and for many of these same people just placing a tee into the ground is a feat of engineering skill.

You can't anticipate general ineptness that is ongoing. For people like that they've invented an area to deal with this -- it's called the practice area -- or, go one step further and take some lessons.

When I started the game there was a rule at the Passaic County GC in Wayne, NJ that inexperienced and beginning players should only play when the course was not crowded. That made sense to just about everyone BEFORE the PC crowd took hold in golf that says everyone's equal.

My father only brought me out to the "big course" when I showed some semblance of understanding the etiquette of the game and was able to play in a manner that would not hold up play. If I reached more than a triple bogey on a hole my father INSISTED I pick up and go to the next hole. In today's game you have some clowns who insist on scoring to the max and therefore will not stop until they are in the hole for a score.

An architect may design the course / road but he can't be held responsible for individual actions that run counter to the spirit of the game.

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff Brauer --

That's a very fine Letterman List of Hack's Thoughts -- but if you (and any other architects hereabouts) had the time, I'd love to see you reply to this thread more seriously.

How much do you think about the "hack" (however you might define that term; I think of someone who struggles to keep his score in two digits) as you design? Do you feel any responsibility to make a course not only "playable" (without an abundance of forced carries over ball-eating hazards), but also as "strategic" as you can for Mr. and Mrs. Hack?

Rick Shefchik, Jeff McDowell and I played yesterday morning with a guy who was indisputably a "hack." (He likely thought the same of me. I played like a dog choking on ... well, you can supply your own ending; someone might here might be eating lunch!)

We played the white tees. Most of the holes were tree-lined, and hole after hole, this guy -- one of these characters with the classic rotten out-to-in slice swing -- would aim it JUST INSIDE the left tree line and let it float right, hoping it would stop floating before it reached the right tree line. It often did. He got around in, I'd guess, 95-100.

His full driver distance, after all of that floating, was probably  200 to 215 yards. Hole after hole, Rick and Jeff and I had to give some thought to fairway bunkers, right and left, well-placed for us, and to the subsequent angles into the greens, while our companion Mr. Hack just blasted away -- several times with the comment "I can't reach that bunker, anyway."

I was thinking, yesterday afternoon, that he might enjoy the game more -- and, not just coincidentally, feel some need to fix that slice swing of his -- if he felt the need to think more  strategically. He would need to think more strategically, it seems to me, if, for example, architects put more bunkers in places where Mr. and Mrs. Hack would have to deal with them, and if architects more regularly offered strategic Hack Openings to their greens.

What say ye?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

"our companion Mr. Hack just blasted away -- several times with the comment "I can't reach that bunker, anyway."

Were you playing in Britain with Greg Norman by any chance?

Thanks for acknowledging the humorous attempt.  When I saw your reply, I figured you would mention it.  Everyone else is Sooooo serious on this stuff.....

I suspect that the true hacks innermost swing thoughts focus on ball contact, and perhaps not embarrassing themselves.  I know few who think about strategy, becuase they know deep down the chance of their swing matching thier thought process is about nil.

I consider the true hack more on a muni design, of which I do plenty.  If you plot the possible tee shots of all types of players, you soon find there is no area that won't have a shot find it along the length of the hole.  This leads to the old architectural axiom "you should be able to use a putter all the way around." and clean looking courses a la Fazio, and most others.

On tee shots, I keep the 200 yard area wider.  Pure remaining distance seems challenge enough.  Your described strategy of drifting shots with the wind is about all they can do, unless its aim for a bridge to help with forced pond carries.

Ditto with most greens.  I feel the only real strategy for hacks is to play to the fat part of the green, rather than at a guarded pin.

At resorts, like Giant's Ridge, I give less consideration, but I often wonder how many rounds I ended before they started with the forced wetland carry on 1 and 10.  If they weren't necessary for environmental reasons, they would be gone.

I will place a few short bunkers to challenge them, as they pay the same greens fee as everyone else.  Ditto, forced carries on the green.  If there are none, I think they get offended, and feel the design is condescending, but a limited dose goes a long way.  It helps if the forced carries are georgeous.

Any chance your august threesome is coming to Giant's Ridge for the July 27-28 Press Day?  Spots are filling up, so let me know!

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Patrick:  Again, I am not talking about catering to the hack.  Just talking about including him.  How can one do this while still challenging the aerial game of the skilled player?  

Provide the hack an alternate route around the impediment.  It will still be the same carry for the skilled player, but the hack can finish with the ball he started, if he chose to avoid the risk.  

If a golfer is of so little ability that he can't get the ball airborne, I would doubt that he could navigate any type of feature intended to impede or challenge the skilled player.

I think it is realistically impossible to design a golf course for players of such little ability that they can't get the ball airborne, while at the same time providing a challenge for the more skilled players.

At some point, there has to be a minimum acceptable standard of play, you cannot design for the lowest common denominator.

But, that's just my opinion.

Could you cite 5 courses that accomodate golfers who can't get the ball airborne, while at the same time providing challenge to the more skilled players ?  

[Michael Moore]

Mr. Mucci -

You bring a wealth of knowledge, insight and experience to the table and I enjoy your downright Socratic method.

Therefore I can accept your hyper-rationality, your contentiousness and your dozen-at-a-time inquiries.

But lay off the evil sneering icon, man!

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick:

TOC comes immediately to mind. It's the only course I've played in Great Britain, but I have to believe there are four others over there that incorporate a similar style.

I think you're getting hung up on the phrase "getting the ball airborne. There are many ways to define a hack; that's just the most extreme case. But when you put a ravine or a pond in front of a player who tends to hit dribblers fairly often, they are going to hit dribblers more often. This is true even for players who are not complete hackers. Hitting over water still induces my wife to fail to get a ball airborne, even though she gets almost all her shots airborne, and has shot in the 80s a number of times.

Think of the guy Dan Kelly mentioned in his post, rather than a hack who can't get his ball airborne. Is there any reason for an architect to think about that guy when he designs a course?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,

I thought that someone would volunteer TOC, I reflected on it myself, but, I think the course would be a disaster for a golfer who can't get the ball airborne.

His round would be over the moment his ball found a deep bunker, or any bunker, which only Tiger seemed capable of avoiding.

The penal nature of some of the bunkering and bunkering schemes/patterns would have your golfer taking up bowling very quickly.

Michael Moore,

Be careful what you say about me, Tom MacWood will label you as another alter ego or pen name of mine.  If he would only have followed the email address trail he could have easily saved himself alot of ink, embarrassment and cash.

The smiley icons are a method of communicating that the question is not one which tries to pin the addressee's ears back.  Until a better method is created, you're stuck with taking the bad with the good.  But, thanks for the semi-kind words  

[Dan Kelly]

The smiley icons are a method of communicating that the question is not one which tries to pin the addressee's ears back.  Until a better method is created, you're stuck with taking the bad with the good.  But, thanks for the semi-kind words  

If I'm not mistaken, sir, the estimable Mr. Moore was not objecting to emoticons in general, but merely to that evil, Cleveland Indians-style smiley of which you're so fond.  

As for the Old Course's difficulty for the ground-ball-hitting hack: I'm pretty sure I saw the guy over by the 1st green, dribbling balls into the Swilcan Burn! He'll deal with those bunkers when he gets there. If he gets there!

But let's talk about the hack capable of getting balls airborne, OK? The Old Course could work pretty well for them, could it not? And doesn't it still challenge the best players? And isn't that why, stripping away all of its history, some people still see it as an architectural ideal?

[egundeck]

"I guess the term "hack" must be defined, and I can only guess that we all feel like a "hack" now and then.
I just can't understand how someone that scores in the high 80's and 90's and above can possibly give ANY strategy a second thought.  The only thing they are trying to do is hit the ball on the clubface.   
Strategy is for players.  Contact is for "hackers"."

I think your definition of stragegy is too narrow. As a high 80s shooter, i agree that i am usually more focussed on contact than drawing or fading the ball. However, stragtegy entails more than shaping your shots. Choosing to lay up on a par 5 rather than trying to hit the 3-wood of my life, aiming for the fat part of the green, and hitting 3-wood off of the tee are all strategic decisions that even a "hack" is capable of making, and which usually will improve their score.

In terms of the "hack" and the architect question, it seems like no architect should be obligated to factor in really bad shots (on the first tee at Merion once my father-in-law sliced a drive so badly that it went over the practice green and struck a car driving down the road). I think the question really is, is the architect obligated to allow for a safe "bail-out" that doesn't punish the "hack" for a less than perfect shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Kelly,

Since noone stepped forward to define "Hack", I qualified the term by one incapable of getting the ball airborne, that allowed me to discuss the issue, having defined the golfers abilities or inabilities.

If you want to redefine "hack" for your examples, please proceed.  Like a liquid, I find it hard to provide a universal shape.

With respect to the icon I prefer to use, I like the grin  

[Bob_Huntley]

The Old Course would be a disaster for the dribbler, think of the whins in front of two and three as a start. However, the New Course would fit right in. The now defunct Shore Course at MPCC would allow the low ball hitter a chance. I'll think of others as I go along.

[Dan Kelly]

If you want to redefine "hack" for your examples, please proceed.

I already did redefine it for my examples, Patrick. Read what I wrote! Read where Rick Shefchik asked you to respond to the redefinition I proposed!

Sheesh.

[George Pazin]

I guess it all depends on your definition of hack.

I don't think the type of golfer Patrick or Matt Ward are referring to should really be on any course other than a beginner executive type course or maybe a really open simple muni or mom & pop type course. Sadly, a winter spent swinging a momentus indoors has left me hitting more than a few horrendous shots in recent outings. I don't think the architect bears any responsibilty for idiots like me duffing a tee shot or whatever. (As a side note, I'd guess most of those top shot ponds in front of tees are merely drainage/irrigation ponds & are not intended to penalize true hackers.)

I definitely think the hacker under Dan's definition deserves opportunities to get around most courses (I'll throw in some exemptions for the PV, TPC Sawgrass/Stadium West types of the world that are designed to test expert golfers). I didn't really enjoy my round at Mystic Rock for exactly this reason. Repetitive forced carries of 150-200 yards, with super thick lush rough penalizing the wayward tee shot, didn't really allow this hack to exactly enjoy his first trip round a Pete Dye course. I can make these carries, but not too consistently - and rough like the rough there was bordering on silly, unless you had a forecaddy to spot exactly where your ball went. I lost several tee shots that weren't more than a couple yards off the fairway because I couldn't see exactly where my ball was from 250 yards away.

Maybe that just means MR is a course that is looking to fit into the PV/TPC test type mold. If so, great, but they won't be getting any more of my dollars until I get much better & shake the hacker label.

[DMoriarty]

If a golfer is of so little ability that he can't get the ball airborne, I would doubt that he could navigate any type of feature intended to impede or challenge the skilled player.

I think it is realistically impossible to design a golf course for players of such little ability that they can't get the ball airborne, while at the same time providing a challenge for the more skilled players.

At some point, there has to be a minimum acceptable standard of play, you cannot design for the lowest common denominator.Could you cite 5 courses that accomodate golfers who can't get the ball airborne, while at the same time providing challenge to the more skilled players ?

Patrick, you are such a piece of work.  Nicely selected selection.  Let me fill in the rest of what I said in the same post:  
  

Also, be a little more creative.  Quit relying exclusively on the WOW factor of the forced carry two out of every three holes.  Not every course needs 15 forced carries, all of which are easily made by the skilled player and often impossible for the hack.  
_____________________

Look, I dont want this to deteriorate into arguing whether or not forced carries are ever acceptable, so I will concede that with some sites and with the current regulatory atmosphere, some forced carries are inevitiable.  I dont think this is a bad thing, because making a forced carry that you didnt think you could make is one of the most thrilling shots in golf, especially for the hack.  But come on, enough is enough.

Modern architects use forced carries as the opiate of the golfing masses.  

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

As a tactic of argumentation and last resort in these discussions you get into asking contributors to define the terms that've been used for a number of posts, don't you?

So in that vein would you mind defining Pat Mucci for me? I don't think anyone on here knows what he means!

[Jeff Goldman]

Except for the tee shot on 16, can't you putt it around Pinehurst #2?  I think I did my first round there.

Jeff Goldman

[tonyt]

Guys,

There are two deeply contrasting definitions of hacks presented here.

The "have no idea-run to the back tees-where is the cart girl-blaze away" hack is NOT a 90 shooter. Not even close. They've had a dubious 41 for nine holes around a par 32 muni once before in their lives, but generally shoot a "108 nett 97". What is that you ask? It's an announced 97 that fails to include lost balls or unplayables (just adding one shot instead of two, dropping on the fairway), missed putts inside 12 feet and just turning all those 9s magically into 7s and 8s.

The majority of mid 80s to low 90s shooters at my work (we play heaps of corporate golf days) carry 95 out of 100 tee shots over 120 yards, and more than fifty percent of their tee shots would carry 180 yards or more. They hit their irons roughly correctly, rarely if ever duffing a mid iron more than 20 yards short of a green unless in a difficult lie, and can get down in three almost every time within 40 yards unless a tight hole location or green complex occasionally stumbles them.

So high shots, lower shots, recovery shots, playing for position off the tee, playing for portions of the green, types of greenside chips and pitches etc. are ALL within their range of ability to quite an extent. Their ability to successfully execute their thoughts is another matter, but they see what they need to do, and can often pick the right type of shot.

Please guys, don't label them as hacks who cannot comprehend strategy, nor play whilst utilising strategy. I feel for them, because on my bad days, I shoot high 80s too!

Leave the hack definition to those who simply cannot break 100 around a tough course from middle tees, and play too rarely to understand etiquette or appreciate anything other than the eye candy.

[Doug Siebert]

But you can give the hopeless player an out. The most cruel and pointless thing golf course architects do -- and they don't do it too often, fortunately -- is to put a pond directly in front of the tee on a hole. I've never understood why you want to further penalize a shot that's only going to go 30 yards anyway.

Same with gullies. We've all played holes where the average-to-good player can easily clear some deep pit that intersects the fairway, whereas the hack is more or less forced to chop a couple of balls into the abyss and then drop on the other side. The ideal course should provide a way for the hack to get around the gully, or the gully should not have been incorporated into the design of the course.

Having said that, why not put a few hazards in spots that the good player can clear easily, but the hack has to aim away from? A fairway bunker 150 yards off the tee isn't going to affect the skilled player, but it gives the hack more to think about than the fairway bunker at 225.

I'd much rather see architects challenge the hack to steer his slice away from a hazard (or lay up to avoid it) rather than challenge the hack to get his shot off the ground.

Why do you want to put bunkers at 150 to give the hack more to think about?  He's going to think about the bunkers challenging the good players on his SECOND shot anyway, and think harder about most of the greenside bunkers (often on 2-3 shots!) that good players will mostly ignore.

I don't understand the "50 yard carry" ponds anymore than you do, but I also don't understand the bunkers 100 yards out, either (unless they are shared hazards with those playing from further back)  Give those guys a break, they have to give a lot more consideration to every hazard that challenges a good player, you don't need to add hazards especially for them!

[TomSteenstrup]

tonyt: Thank you!

You describe my game perfectly, and I really do not like being labelled a hack!

Actually, I would argue that while we rarely think about shaping the ball as a strategic option, we have more strategic choices to make in a round than a scratch golfer. As an examples, a long par 4 can be played in many different ways when your goal is to make bogey, while a scratch golfer may be very limited in choice of clubs.

Tom

Guys,

There are two deeply contrasting definitions of hacks presented here.

The "have no idea-run to the back tees-where is the cart girl-blaze away" hack is NOT a 90 shooter. Not even close. They've had a dubious 41 for nine holes around a par 32 muni once before in their lives, but generally shoot a "108 nett 97". What is that you ask? It's an announced 97 that fails to include lost balls or unplayables (just adding one shot instead of two, dropping on the fairway), missed putts inside 12 feet and just turning all those 9s magically into 7s and 8s.

The majority of mid 80s to low 90s shooters at my work (we play heaps of corporate golf days) carry 95 out of 100 tee shots over 120 yards, and more than fifty percent of their tee shots would carry 180 yards or more. They hit their irons roughly correctly, rarely if ever duffing a mid iron more than 20 yards short of a green unless in a difficult lie, and can get down in three almost every time within 40 yards unless a tight hole location or green complex occasionally stumbles them.

So high shots, lower shots, recovery shots, playing for position off the tee, playing for portions of the green, types of greenside chips and pitches etc. are ALL within their range of ability to quite an extent. Their ability to successfully execute their thoughts is another matter, but they see what they need to do, and can often pick the right type of shot.

Please guys, don't label them as hacks who cannot comprehend strategy, nor play whilst utilising strategy. I feel for them, because on my bad days, I shoot high 80s too!

Leave the hack definition to those who simply cannot break 100 around a tough course from middle tees, and play too rarely to understand etiquette or appreciate anything other than the eye candy.

[Joe Sponcia]

More good scores are ruined by poor thinking than by poor execution.  One of my best friends is a twenty.  I am a three.  We normally play 36 each time out.  After he struggled in with a 97 in the morning I told him to let me determine what shot and club he should hit.  He shot 88 in the afternoon.  We all think we can pull off shots that we normally can't. 
Now while I say that Poor thinking can ruin a score, I think I would rather try difficult shots because they are fun.  It took me a long time to discover that score isn,t the main reason  I play.  I play for fun: cutting the dodgleg, hitting a flopshot from a bare lie, trying to  hit a low hook around a tree or a high fade.  If I pull it off,great, if I don't I get the opportunity to be exceptional around the green.

Tommy,


I've done the same thing countless times with higher handicap players.  Part of strategy is definitely understanding what you are truly capable of.  I've got a good friend that says to high handicaps we play with, "are you playing for score or a story"?   My wife is an honest 36 handicap.  When she has a string of bad holes, I don't know how she keeps her interest, but inevitably she will hit several good shots and her enthusiasm spikes, similar to when I first started playing myself (she started playing seriously three years ago).  In the car on the way back from our last round, she talked openly about strategy on several holes, but freely admitted the limitations of her skill vs. the shots that were demanded day in, day out.  In short, I don't know if 'bashers' are avid players, but I do believe, even with double bogey golfers, their brains are churning.

[Doug Siebert]

I've done the same thing countless times with higher handicap players.  Part of strategy is definitely understanding what you are truly capable of.  I've got a good friend that says to high handicaps we play with, "are you playing for score or a story"?   My wife is an honest 36 handicap.  When she has a string of bad holes, I don't know how she keeps her interest, but inevitably she will hit several good shots and her enthusiasm spikes, similar to when I first started playing myself (she started playing seriously three years ago).  In the car on the way back from our last round, she talked openly about strategy on several holes, but freely admitted the limitations of her skill vs. the shots that were demanded day in, day out.  In short, I don't know if 'bashers' are avid players, but I do believe, even with double bogey golfers, their brains are churning.

I like your friend's quote, and those who have read my posts about how I approach the game would be not be surprised to hear I'd say I probably play more for a story. But that doesn't imply a lack of knowledge about, thinking about, or playing with strategy. Just that my strategy isn't always the strategy someone trying to shoot the lowest score would choose. If there's a split fairway hole with an 'obvious' choice of which fairway to take, but the other fairway looks more interesting if even if the drive is more dangerous and/or will leave me with a tougher approach I'm going to take it. Then when someone posted on GCA about "who the hell would ever take that left fairway on #14 except by accident" I might have a good story to tell

As for wondering how your wife keeps her interest as a 36 since the game she plays would be so different from yours, I'm a 5 or so but I imagine if I played with Rory who plays a pretty different game from the one I or almost everyone reading this plays he might wonder how I keep my interest. It is all relative for each golfer, in terms of what is the best/worst case outcome, what is likely, what is smart, etc.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()