Penalty Strokes = Bad Architecture

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

You say "I hit it about 12 feet and my opponent hits it to the right on the beach."  Generally when I ony hit the ball twelve feet, I generallyl don't care where my opponents ball is.

On a serious note though, how about Bruce Irvin?
 

OK... I hit it TO about 12 feet!

Irvin - I think the guy will be a stud. His comment about complete lack of coaching innterms of technique is dead on and a long standing issue with the now deprated line coach who was at WVU forever. Kirlav could toughen them up and was good at motivating but his teaching skills were always questioned... mostly by the guys that made it to the next level and then come back saying "Huh, never heard that before" after working with their new line coaches in the NFL.

[Phil McDade]

A rebuttal:

Most of the cited examples are examples of wonderful design that relate to extraordinary features existing on a particular location.  I am of course suppportive of incorporating such features into a design if necessary.  However, if those features can be incorporated in a way that allows for the possibility of a recovery shot, it creates far more interest.  I would suggest that the ocean is a much more interesting hazard if there is a possibility of hitting a recovery shot from the beach.  I would argue that the road on the 17th at St. Andrews creates far more interest than the stationmaster's garden.  The stream in front of the 13th green at Augusta National is a more interesting hazard if there is a possibility of a recovery shot.  

A hazard containing the possibility of a recovery shot invites more agressive play.  For example, when I play a typical par three over a pond, I always try and hit it to the back of the green.  The penalty for hitting it in the water is too great otherwise.  If the par three is over a bunker or a waste area, I may play more agressively, figuring I can try some sort of shot if I fail.  The same equation basically exists for par fours and fives involving ponds.

A course without penalty strokes is not necessarily an easier course.  My impression is that penalty strokes are pretty rare at Oakmont (not sure about the ditches) but it is widely reputed as one of the most difficult courses in the world.  

I find that I enjoy the game more on well designed courses where the score consists of shots hit rather than penalties incurred.  Many great golf courses provide this sort of experience.    


I am not suiggesting penalty stokes should never be included in a course.  I do suggest they should be avoided unless there is a compelling reason to include them.

Jason:

Many good thoughts. Additional ones:

-- Cypress' 16th does have a bail out area left, as you're probably aware, although I'd argue the nature of playing safely on a par 3 is somewhat opposite of how most folks approach par 3s (and I'm guessing that particular hole generates an especially amped-up version of "I have to try this shot at least once" among golfers).

-- What about the penal hazard that rewards the golfer in some way the closer one dallies with it? That, to me, is one of the genius elements of Augusta's 13th, where the hazard of Rae's Creek comes into play twice in that hole. The hole has a clear bail-out area by aiming right off the tee, but that leaves a likely awkward lie for the long approach into the green. By keeping your drive left off the tee, and playing close to Rae's Creek, you're left with a very level lie, and the green "open ups" and becomes a deeper and thus easier target to hit. Few pros lay up at 13, but I'm guessing for member play, the decision to lay up or go for the green in two is a legitimately vexing one, and both the poorly played "aggressive" approach, which ends up long of the green or bunkered, as well as the safer lay up, leave the golfer with an awkward 3rd shot.

See this video of Jack in '86 during his final round charge (and Venturi's commentary); he's less than 10 yards from Rae's Creek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w81j8dXzHQI


I'm generally with you, in that courses ought to "accumulate" strokes via design vs. penalty shots (and Oakmont may be the very best example of that in this country). But the 13th at Augusta strikes me as one of the very best designed holes with a penal element.

[Jason Topp]

-- What about the penal hazard that rewards the golfer in some way the closer one dallies with it? That, to me, is one of the genius elements of Augusta's 13th, where the hazard of Rae's Creek comes into play twice in that hole. The hole has a clear bail-out area by aiming right off the tee, but that leaves a likely awkward lie for the long approach into the green. By keeping your drive left off the tee, and playing close to Rae's Creek, you're left with a very level lie, and the green "open ups" and becomes a deeper and thus easier target to hit. Few pros lay up at 13, but I'm guessing for member play, the decision to lay up or go for the green in two is a legitimately vexing one, and both the poorly played "aggressive" approach, which ends up long of the green or bunkered, as well as the safer lay up, leave the golfer with an awkward 3rd shot.

Phil - Without question the 13th is a great hole.  It is a great hole for the reasons you cite.  I would claim, however, the hole is at its best when the water level is low enough that a recovery shot is a real possibility.  I think such an approach works as a general ideal, that should be adjusted when compelling considerations provide a unique opportunity. 

[Tom Ferrell]

I think that in architectural practice - and even more so in criticism as well - the search for absolutes is the enemy of understanding.  It's certainly been covered here, but penalty-inducing hazards, whatever they may be, *can* in the hands of a skilled and creative architect be strokes of genius.  The "unfair" bunker on the Road Hole for instance (not penalty-bound a la the OB on the tee shot) drives every decision made on the hole.  Rae's Creek on the 13th at Augusta - you want to hug the left hand side for the flat lie and shorter opportunity to go in two, but you risk the creek.  Likewise, you want to go for the green from the fairway, but the creek is there for a wood or long-iron not surely struck.  Brilliance!  You can play the hole as a three-shotter and really have no issue with Rae's Creek.  Meaning:  perfect hazard.

I subscribe to the theory that there is NO substitute in golf for the recovery shot.  The recovery shot is the subject of most great golf stories and memories.  So removing impediments to it, as a general ideal, is great.  But there is also the heroic.  It can't be heroic if it is overused, but think #8 at Pebble.  Even #12 at ANGC or, yes, #17 at TPC Sawgrass.  There is only one way through the keyhole, and you must pass.  It's best used sparingly, for sure, but again, produces memories that last a lifetime.

[Phil McDade]

Phil - Without question the 13th is a great hole.  It is a great hole for the reasons you cite.  I would claim, however, the hole is at its best when the water level is low enough that a recovery shot is a real possibility.  I think such an approach works as a general ideal, that should be adjusted when compelling considerations provide a unique opportunity. 

Jason:

And I'd argue the opposite -- that the penal nature of the shot in the creek (one without recovery), combined with the reward given to the golfer for flirting with such danger, is what makes the hole truly great. The severe penalty of tempting with Rae's Creek off the tee is what leads to so many players bailing out to the right, which I'd argue makes the hole harder to play from the second shot onward. It's the risk of flirting with the creek, and pulling it off successfully, that makes the second shot onward there much easier, and thus the risk is rewarded.

Of all of Jack's back nine shots at Augusta that get endlessly replayed, you rarely see or heard mentioned the tee shot at 13. Yet it was probably the riskiest shot he took all day, and -- coming off a bogey at 12 -- one he had to execute. (His son Jackie thought he'd put it into Rae's Creek.) If Jack puts his tee shot into the creek there, his back-nine charge is effectively over, and a little bit of golf history is lost. Instead, he came away with a birdie at 13, and the rest is the history he made that day. (Not surprisingly, Nicklaus views the 13th as the best "short" par 5 in all of golf.)

[Jason Topp]

I think that in architectural practice - and even more so in criticism as well - the search for absolutes is the enemy of understanding.  

I largely agree.  That is why I tried to pose the thread in terms of Mackenzie's 13 principles which include a bunch of items that he violated all of the time (such as having each 9 return to the clubhouse, avoiding the search for lost balls, etc.).

However, I do think the principles are useful guideposts to consider when evaluating a course.  Tom Doak suggested at one time that the difference he often noticed between good and great courses is often the presence of interesting short par fours.  It is a wonderful and useful observation but if it is converted into an absolute rule blindness may result.

[Jason Topp]

Of all of Jack's back nine shots at Augusta that get endlessly replayed, you rarely see or heard mentioned the tee shot at 13. Yet it was probably the riskiest shot he took all day, and -- coming off a bogey at 12 -- one he had to execute. (His son Jackie thought he'd put it into Rae's Creek.) If Jack puts his tee shot into the creek there, his back-nine charge is effectively over, and a little bit of golf history is lost. Instead, he came away with a birdie at 13, and the rest is the history he made that day. (Not surprisingly, Nicklaus views the 13th as the best "short" par 5 in all of golf.)

I recall the one hour highlight show providing interesting commentary from Jack and his son Jackie who caddied for him that day.  As I recall, Jack pulled the tee shot. 

[George Pazin]

I think that in architectural practice - and even more so in criticism as well - the search for absolutes is the enemy of understanding.  It's certainly been covered here, but penalty-inducing hazards, whatever they may be, *can* in the hands of a skilled and creative architect be strokes of genius.  The "unfair" bunker on the Road Hole for instance (not penalty-bound a la the OB on the tee shot) drives every decision made on the hole.  Rae's Creek on the 13th at Augusta - you want to hug the left hand side for the flat lie and shorter opportunity to go in two, but you risk the creek.  Likewise, you want to go for the green from the fairway, but the creek is there for a wood or long-iron not surely struck.  Brilliance!  You can play the hole as a three-shotter and really have no issue with Rae's Creek.  Meaning:  perfect hazard.

I subscribe to the theory that there is NO substitute in golf for the recovery shot.  The recovery shot is the subject of most great golf stories and memories.  So removing impediments to it, as a general ideal, is great.  But there is also the heroic.  It can't be heroic if it is overused, but think #8 at Pebble.  Even #12 at ANGC or, yes, #17 at TPC Sawgrass.  There is only one way through the keyhole, and you must pass.  It's best used sparingly, for sure, but again, produces memories that last a lifetime.

Damn this is a good post. A great one, even. Well done, sir.

[Tom Ferrell]

Might also say that one the best uses of OB I've seen recently is #2 on the Dunes Course at the Prairie Club.  A long, straight OB fence in perfect alignment with the right side of the tee box, creating a very intimidating visual.  There is TONS of room off to the left, but the hole sets up so that the "line of charm" to play down the right side for a shorter shot to an elevated green.  The OB fence truly interrupts that line of charm, but you can't call it penal because only those who are trying to challenge it *should* have a problem.

The effect of that fence reminded me of #6 at Carnoustie, for sure.