[Patrick_Mucci]

but, what about distance ?

Shouldn't the golfer be challenged with carries of varying lengths on par 4's and par 5's, just like they are on par 3's ?

In the great majority of instances, rarely am I faced with a distance dilema on a par 4 or par 5.

One of the features that I enjoy at NGLA is the distance dilema off the tee on the par 4's and 5's.

Why don't we see more of that on modern golf courses ?

[Garland Bayley]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

[Matt_Cohn]

Pat,

I think there are two questions in here. One is about varying carry lengths, and of course that should be a challenge. Courses where every fairway bunker is 270 are brutal for a 265 hitter and easy for a 275 hitter, even though the difference between them is slight!

I think a more interesting(?) question is about requiring distance control with one's driver or one's teeshots in general. For example, an uphill par-4 might have a flat spot in the fairway from 250-270, with much tougher lies shorter or longer. Another example would be a relatively severe dogleg par-4 lined with trees, where the player must hit the ball the correct distance to have an opening through the trees on his approach shot.

I can't think of a lot of holes where I really think about this off the tee. One of my favorites is the 17th at Spyglass. Though it's only 330 yards, one does not want an awkward wedge yardage because the distance and spin must be controlled so precisely. I realized after a few plays that I couldn't simply punch a hybrid or 3-wood off the tee; I had to actually decide on the yardage I wanted in and do my best to hit my teeshot the correct distance to match.

Certainly this kind of thing could apply with a driver teeshot, but rarely does!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

Garland, when the carry over a bunker is an option, one that brings reward, does it matter if it's penal or not ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I think there are two questions in here. One is about varying carry lengths, and of course that should be a challenge. Courses where every fairway bunker is 270 are brutal for a 265 hitter and easy for a 275 hitter, even though the difference between them is slight!

Does such a course exist ?

I think a more interesting(?) question is about requiring distance control with one's driver or one's teeshots in general. For example, an uphill par-4 might have a flat spot in the fairway from 250-270, with much tougher lies shorter or longer. Another example would be a relatively severe dogleg par-4 lined with trees, where the player must hit the ball the correct distance to have an opening through the trees on his approach shot.

Why context the discussion at such extraordinary lengths ?

Shouldn't everyday play have these features for the members and guests of varying abilities.

Isn't the "bottle" hole at NGLA a good example ?

I can't think of a lot of holes where I really think about this off the tee. One of my favorites is the 17th at Spyglass. Though it's only 330 yards, one does not want an awkward wedge yardage because the distance and spin must be controlled so precisely. I realized after a few plays that I couldn't simply punch a hybrid or 3-wood off the tee; I had to actually decide on the yardage I wanted in and do my best to hit my teeshot the correct distance to match.

Certainly this kind of thing could apply with a driver teeshot, but rarely does!

That's the question, why not ?

[Garland Bayley]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

Garland, when the carry over a bunker is an option, one that brings reward, does it matter if it's penal or not ?

Pat,

It's just a bunker. You can play short. You can play along side. You can play over. Nothing penal about it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

Garland, when the carry over a bunker is an option, one that brings reward, does it matter if it's penal or not ?

Pat,

It's just a bunker. You can play short. You can play along side. You can play over. Nothing penal about it.

What if you're in it ?
There are bunkers that are more penal than others.

The left side fairway bunker at # 18 at NGLA and the centerline bunkers at # 8 are a rather difficult extraction.

[Garland Bayley]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

Garland, when the carry over a bunker is an option, one that brings reward, does it matter if it's penal or not ?

Pat,

It's just a bunker. You can play short. You can play along side. You can play over. Nothing penal about it.

What if you're in it ?
There are bunkers that are more penal than others.

The left side fairway bunker at # 18 at NGLA and the centerline bunkers at # 8 are a rather difficult extraction.

It's just a bunker Pat. Carrying 250 yards of junk to reach a fairway at the open at Bethpage is penal.

[Matt_Cohn]

Pat,

I think there are two questions in here. One is about varying carry lengths, and of course that should be a challenge. Courses where every fairway bunker is 270 are brutal for a 265 hitter and easy for a 275 hitter, even though the difference between them is slight!

Does such a course exist ?

I hope not to that extreme, but I've certainly played courses with many fairway bunkers ending at very nearly the same length off the tee. Didn't RTJ do this somewhat often?

I think a more interesting(?) question is about requiring distance control with one's driver or one's teeshots in general. For example, an uphill par-4 might have a flat spot in the fairway from 250-270, with much tougher lies shorter or longer. Another example would be a relatively severe dogleg par-4 lined with trees, where the player must hit the ball the correct distance to have an opening through the trees on his approach shot.

Why context the discussion at such extraordinary lengths ?

I play lots of my golf with a bunch of kids who carry it even longer than that. I'm sure everyone knows what I mean.  
Shouldn't everyday play have these features for the members and guests of varying abilities.

Isn't the "bottle" hole at NGLA a good example ?

I have no idea!

I can't think of a lot of holes where I really think about this off the tee. One of my favorites is the 17th at Spyglass. Though it's only 330 yards, one does not want an awkward wedge yardage because the distance and spin must be controlled so precisely. I realized after a few plays that I couldn't simply punch a hybrid or 3-wood off the tee; I had to actually decide on the yardage I wanted in and do my best to hit my teeshot the correct distance to match.

Certainly this kind of thing could apply with a driver teeshot, but rarely does!

That's the question, why not ?

I think there's a pretty solid undercurrent amongst most players that, provided he can be accurate, the longer driver should have the opportunity to use this skill to his advantage. Maybe it's partly because of driver marketing too; it's not marketed as a position club, but as a long, longer, longest club. The idea of hitting the driver a specified distance doesn't make sense to someone who has spent his whole life being told that longer is better. Give him a hole where longer is worse - especially if it's something subtle, like a slightly obscured view or a hillier lie - and it won't jive with one of the fundamental messages that the golfer has received his entire playing life: when it comes to drivers, longer is better.

[Mark Chaplin]

Garland rather than let Pat spout on about great courses most mortals can only dream of playing, grab your passport or apply for one and come and see some links golf or the likes of Ganton or Woodhall Spa, you will quickly learn a bunker isn't an oversized rabbit scrape full of sand but a potentially penal hazard where playing backwards or sideways maybe your only option. Cabot and Bandon appear to offer the same challenges.

[Sean_A]

Isn't part of the concept of a dogleg to make the golfer control his tee shot length?  I see length used a lot as a choice off the tee.  This is why sharpening angles off the tee is often times more important than merely adding length to the hole.

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

The recent US Open at Olympic was clearly an example of how distance off the tee factored into the thinking/"game plan" of the players. The modest doglegs combined with the sloped/canted fairways obliged them to consider how far down the fairway they wanted their tee shots to land.     

[Simon Holt]

I recently played Castle Stuart, which I really enjoyed.  I have to say I found it a little 'samey' off some of the tees.  I had heard all the hype (which it lives up to) and was genuinely impressed by the approach shots, green surrounds and putting surfaces. The scenery is simply breathtaking and the staff are great.

I am not necessarily saying it is easy off the tee but if you mention that point, people say you have to be in the right place on the fairway to access the pins.  I am not sure I buy that. 

Why is this an issue?  Its not.  Its still a very, very good golf course.  It is just that for the lower/middle bracket of golfer I didn't see real 'interest' off the tee outside of the 3s and short 4s.  Perhaps its because I played Dornoch in the afternoon that this was highlighted to me.

Can anyone else see where I am coming from?  Like I said, it doesn't detract much from a very good golf course.  When a place is that good one tends to get a little picky.

[Jason Thurman]

I think a more interesting(?) question is about requiring distance control with one's driver or one's teeshots in general. For example, an uphill par-4 might have a flat spot in the fairway from 250-270, with much tougher lies shorter or longer. Another example would be a relatively severe dogleg par-4 lined with trees, where the player must hit the ball the correct distance to have an opening through the trees on his approach shot.

Why context the discussion at such extraordinary lengths ?

Thank you both, Matt for using 250-270 in your example and Pat for calling that "extraordinary length." I used to carry the ball 275 easily. Suddenly I've found, at 28 years old and in the best shape I've ever been (I can finally grab the rim!), that I can now only carry it 250 at best. I'm not sure what's going on, but I was feeling like a bunter lately until Pat called 250 "extraordinary."

I've played some courses that effectively require you to control distance off the tee to a precise yardage on most holes. I find them extremely stifling and frustrating to play. Hitting the ball a long way is fun and should be an advantage for the player that does it. I'm okay with a few tee shots where the ideal play is 250-270, but if every hole has such a tight window, it stops being fun after a while.

On the other hand, I love courses like Pat mentioned that test distance off the tee. Trophy Club outside Indianapolis is a GREAT example. Every tee shot for me seemed like it had a bunker I could fly to try to cut the dogleg, or a centerline hazard I had to lay up short of or try to bang one over. Sometimes I succeeded (15th) and other times I failed (9th), but it was a really fun round of golf from the tee and opened my eyes to how boring most tee shots really are.

[David_Tepper]

Simon Holt -

I think your comments about Castle Stuart are pretty much on the mark.

Not being an very good player, I am pretty much thinking in terms of "center of the fairway" and "center of the green" on just about any and every hole. However, I do recall, from my round at CS a month ago, that there were a couple of par-4's where one might want to be on the left side of the fairway if the pin was on the right and vice-versa. I think the 13th was one of those holes.

DT

[Garland Bayley]

Garland rather than let Pat spout on about great courses most mortals can only dream of playing, grab your passport or apply for one and come and see some links golf or the likes of Ganton or Woodhall Spa, you will quickly learn a bunker isn't an oversized rabbit scrape full of sand but a potentially penal hazard where playing backwards or sideways maybe your only option. Cabot and Bandon appear to offer the same challenges.

I played Chambers Bay this summer. Well actually the pacific northwest is making the old joke, "enjoy our summer July 5 to July 6", true this year, so it wasn't summer like. On 18, I threw a ball into Chambers Basement, the new totally out of character bunker Mike Davis of the USGA had them put in, and went in and hit it out. Advanced the ball maybe 50 yards. Heck, sometimes that's all I advance the ball from flat fairway.

However, if you want penal, put in a must carry pond that is difficult to clear. I can't hit the ball while submerged. Put in heavy grass that can gobble balls that must be cleared. I hope you get the idea. Must is the keyword here.

The bunker is not penal, because I don't have to come anywhere near it unless I choose to do so.

[Jason Thurman]

Garland, I understand what you're talking about, but your definition of the word penal just doesn't match up with what that word actually means. Virtually everyone on this board uses the word "penal" as the antithesis of "strategic:" to describe features that punish bad shots as opposed to defining strategically beneficial positions. The fairway bunkers off the tee on a hole like the 2nd at Pebble fit this definition, as they don't serve any strategic purpose but merely exist to punish bad shots.

There's also the more general definition of penal as something that extracts a penalty, like the bunker you mention on the 18th at Chambers Bay. If something that costs everyone a 1 stroke penalty isn't "penal" to you, then I think you're confused on the definition.

You seem only to consider water, OB, and native areas penal, while any feature that doesn't cause an automatic lost ball is not penal. Most of us differentiate between water and bunkers by saying "water" or "bunker."

[Mark Chaplin]

My dear boy you clearly do not understand the concept of links style golf so I won't try and explain it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

Garland, when the carry over a bunker is an option, one that brings reward, does it matter if it's penal or not ?

[/quote]

Pat,

It's just a bunker. You can play short. You can play along side. You can play over. Nothing penal about it.

What if you're in it ?
There are bunkers that are more penal than others.

The left side fairway bunker at # 18 at NGLA and the centerline bunkers at # 8 are a rather difficult extraction.

[/quote]
[/quote]

It's just a bunker Pat. Carrying 250 yards of junk to reach a fairway at the open at Bethpage is penal.

The "junk" at BPB is mostly rough, and hardly penal, especially when compared to deep bunkers with steep faces
[/quote]

[Niall C]

I recently played Castle Stuart, which I really enjoyed.  I have to say I found it a little 'samey' off some of the tees.  I had heard all the hype (which it lives up to) and was genuinely impressed by the approach shots, green surrounds and putting surfaces. The scenery is simply breathtaking and the staff are great.

I am not necessarily saying it is easy off the tee but if you mention that point, people say you have to be in the right place on the fairway to access the pins.  I am not sure I buy that. 

Why is this an issue?  Its not.  Its still a very, very good golf course.  It is just that for the lower/middle bracket of golfer I didn't see real 'interest' off the tee outside of the 3s and short 4s.  Perhaps its because I played Dornoch in the afternoon that this was highlighted to me.

Can anyone else see where I am coming from?  Like I said, it doesn't detract much from a very good golf course.  When a place is that good one tends to get a little picky.

Simon

Bang on about Castle Stuart, its what I've been saying on here for a while and indeed seem to recall making the same point to you over a drink at Renaissance. In most of the holes up top it matters not a jot whether you hit it right middle or left on what are easily the widest fairways I've ever played on. That becomes fairly uninteresting fairly quickly. As average a golfer as I am, I still like a challenge beyond being able to hit the ball in roughly the right direction. I'm helping at the Scottish Open next week so interesting to see what difference the new bunkers have made.

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry Pat, but the junk at Bethpage Black used as an example results in lost balls if you are not playing in the US Open with ball spotters, huge numbers of eyeballs, etc.

It seems to me that defining penal golf by bunkers that are called penal is nutso. If the bunker is not penal, then why have one. You guys so called penal bunkers are strategic, because they make you decide the challenge you wish to take on. You guys are saying that The Old Course is a penal course, because there are so many pot bunkers that will cost you a stroke.

What a bunch of BS.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Distance should be a concern, but not for forced carries, unless a risk reward hazard. Penal carries are not desirable.

Garland, when the carry over a bunker is an option, one that brings reward, does it matter if it's penal or not ?

Pat,

It's just a bunker. You can play short. You can play along side. You can play over. Nothing penal about it.

So, according to you, NO bunker is penal in nature ?

Have you played NGLA ?

Troon, TOC, ? ? ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sorry Pat, but the junk at Bethpage Black used as an example results in lost balls if you are not playing in the US Open with ball spotters, huge numbers of eyeballs, etc.

Garland,

What are you talking about ?

The "junk" you refer to is just rough and it's reasonable rough.
You're confusing the rough for the U.S. Open with the everyday rough and they're not the same.

I've played the Open tees with a number of fellows and noone had any difficulty finding their ball short of the fairway

It seems to me that defining penal golf by bunkers that are called penal is nutso.

I've not made that assertion.
You seem to be the one making it.

I asked a question about the nature of a bunker, and what difference it made if it was penal or not.
To state that no bunker is penal, seems..........foolish at best.

If the bunker is not penal, then why have one.

Are you familiar with "catch" bunkers ?
Often used to "catch" a ball before it goes into a hazard, OB, or hostile territory.


You guys so called penal bunkers are strategic, because they make you decide the challenge you wish to take on.

Who are: "You Guys" ?

Bunkers can also be "penal" due to their configuration, irrespective of the decisions they force.


You guys are saying that The Old Course is a penal course, because there are so many pot bunkers that will cost you a stroke.
Whom ? exactly is saying that ?

Is the "Road Hole" bunker a "penal" bunker, or just a bunker you can hit along side of, short, or long ?

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, can't the Road Hole bunker be both? It's obviously penal for anyone inside it, but it's also strategic in the way it governs the ideal angle of approach and can be avoided, but at great risk of getting out of position (and perhaps putting yourself at an angle where you end up hitting into it on a later shot).

I would argue that bunkers should almost always be penal enough to make recovery very difficult, but still used as a strategic feature on the course that a player can attempt to carry, hit alongside of, or hit short of.

[David_Elvins]

Pat, can't the Road Hole bunker be both? It's obviously penal for anyone inside it, but it's also strategic in the way it governs the ideal angle of approach and can be avoided, but at great risk of getting out of position (and perhaps putting yourself at an angle where you end up hitting into it on a later shot).

Jason,

A lot of people get confused.  Penal golf holes are different from Penal hazards. 

The very nature of risk and reward means that strategic golf holes will often have penal hazards. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()