"It's a second shot golf course" ???

[Jay Flemma]

We hear this all the time, but what does it mean and does it get mis-used?  what does describing a course as a "2nd shot golf course" mean about the tee shot?  That you can drive all over creation?  Does it mean that there are no good strategic tests off the tee?  what are some "second shot golf courses" and why?

We got into because someone said Teeth of the Dog was a second shot golf course which is a load of hooey - you can't just go driving all over creation and expect to make birdies or even pars...when your buddy hits on in the Caribbean off the tee on 6 or 8, I dare you to say to him "that's okay, it's a second shot golf course" and see if you don't get a driver to the forehead!  Torrey Pines or Bethpage Black?  Are they maybe 2d shot golf courses?

[RJ_Daley]

I'm not clear as to what the exact or official definition is, either.

To me, it implies a course that has straight forward, tee shots of little variance as to the optimal LZ, but the distances from optimal LZs to the hole vary widely along with interesting or varied greens surrounds and putting surfaces.  So, it means that the focus and interest in the game is created by varied and complex greens surrounds and putting contours, and LZs that lie varied distances from middle of greens due to many varied hole lengths.

I could be wrong... 

[George Pazin]

I think it is a statement largely mis-used by people who don't understand strategy. They tend to look at some courses as not testing the driver, merely the approach shots, becasse these courses lack OBVIOUS challenges to the drive: water, ob, heavy penal rough, penal bunkering, etc. But all the while, they completely overlook how a drive in the proper location would help the approach shot, sometimes immeasurably.

It's a sort of backhanded compliment/insult, depending on how you look at it.

It reminds me of the expression "This course requires every club in the bag". I personally would rather a course ask me to hit high approach shots, low runners, safe shots, bold shots, etc., rather than simply asking me to hit drop and shot shots from a variety of distances.

[Greg Tallman]

Bethpage Black 18 is a second shot hole... not sure how many complete courses could be labled as such.

The course I grew up certainly applies - wide open with largely push up, upside down saucer style greens with a grand total of 9 bunkers on the 18 holes.  Of course most second shots were between 60 to 130 yards... so I am not sure you could lable it as anything biut short.

[BCrosby]

It's about as meaningful as saying "This is a second course restaurant".

Bob

[Jay Flemma]

Great responses all!

[Gary Slatter]

I think it's a silly saying, however The Old Course is what I consider a "second shot course".  Your second shot on almost every hole is the challenge, including 11!

Many Norman and Player courses have odd shaped greens that don't receive a ball well, too shallow of too slim. 

[Brent Hutto]

Well make up your own term if you like but there has to be some word or phrase to describe a very specific and common type of golf course. My club's course is one of them

Out of 27 holes there are a handful, at the very most, of Par 4 and Par 5 tee shots which are as difficult and/or interesting as the two or three most uninteresting approach shots. With only a couple exceptions you have to hit a pretty bad tee shot to not be in an acceptable position to play your second. Yet most of our greens are well protected and you can often be off by just 6-8 yards on an approach shot and find your ball wandering to a place where a two-putt is very difficult or off the green all together in some cases.

So when I think back to this evening's round not a single tee shot stands out in my mind as particularly memorable. Yet I can easily think of several very challenging approach shots including one that was pretty demanding even with a wedge in my hand for the third shot on a Par 5.

What would you strategic geniuses prefer to call this type of course? And no gibes about angles and strategy and tacking your way around the course by choosing left side of this fairway or playing over the bunker on the right to open up a green. I'm talking about actual golf not beard pulling.

[Peter Pallotta]

J -

when I hear the term I think back to a very specific time/place, i.e. 1998, when 58 year old jack Nicklaus made his last amazing run at the Masters (finishing 5th, i believe). And i remember the conditions were tough for him, it was rainy the first couple of days, and the course was playing long. JN was many years removed from a time when he could over-power the course with distance; in fact, by then he was one of the shorter hitters/drivers in the field. But he made sure that his lack of distance wasn't a huge problem by driving it to all the right spots for (what were for him now, at 58, and on an artificial hip) his mid-to-long-iron approaches to most greens. Those approaches were just amazing, so well played, so smartly played to the right spots on the greens. (Alas, his putting was only decent and his chipping and bunker play were are average as ever.) And so what I concluded is that JN managed to finish 5th at the Masters because of his impeccable approach shots, shots FROM the right spots in the fairway and TO the right spots on the greens -- and that's why I still think of Augusta as a "second shot golf course".

P

[Mark Saltzman]

George Pazin's post = bingo.

[Jay Flemma]

Peter, but if he was only able to get that far in the tournament but no further by playing from the perfect places for approaches, doesn't that mean it was a first shot golf course? As in, "if he wasn't in the right spot off the tee he was a dead duck?"

Brent, my beef isn't so much the term, but it's misapplication.  It seems to get leaned on like a crutch - one of those meaningless phrases that get tossed out like "they have to make more plays than the other team."  It does sound, from your description, that your course may be a second shot golf course...but aren;t the rest of the guys right in that saying such is a slight? Or at best a left handed compliment?  What are some other "second shot golf courses" we might know?

[Brent Hutto]

For my part, I tend to seek out such courses. Partly because I don't hit the ball very far and therefore play the "up" tees. A lot of non 'second shot courses" lose some of their first-shot character, so to speak, if you play anywhere other than the back or way-back tees.

A counter-example would be the Ocean Course at Kiawah. In my own hierarchy of types of golf courses it is the in the most desirable category.

You've got courses that tend to be interesting or not on the second shot. For my part it is very difficult for first-shot values to be so great that flat, boring, simple greens are OK in the overall context of the course. So I am totally into the "interesting yes" branch of the second-shot tree.

And courses are interesting or not on the tee shot. This one has a next branch which is whether or not an "interesting" first-shot holds up well for someone playing the course at 6,000 or less.

So my ideal is a course that offers interest on the second shot and interest on the first shot and holds up well when played from 6,000 yards. That's the category in which I place the Ocean Course. I also found Ganton to be in that category on last year's golf holiday, although its greens are a mixture of the thrilling and mundane, not necessarily up to the Ocean Course's standard in my estimation.

But as for other courses which are more in the "interesting second shot, not so much first shot" branch of my tree I'd say a great many older country-club or better than average public courses are in that mold. A lot of what came out of the Ross-Maples et. al. line of descent were pretty wide open on the tee shots (especially in later decades after some fairway bunkers may have been grassed over) but due to slower green speeds they often had fairly tricky green sites. Athens Country Club, Palmetto, heck I even put Pine Needles into that category although some of the tee shots there can be strategic/interesting/whatever.

Anyway, that's some top-of-head examples in both directions among the courses I've played enough to be somewhat familiar. The ones I've mentioned favorably might be more or less strategic off the tee depending on turf, playing corridor width and whether there's any wind about. But my preferences do not require that a green be easy from one side of the fairway and hard from the opposite to be "strategic". I am perfectly OK with a hole that is just tricky or difficult on the approach no matter how well you steer your tee shot.

[Jason Thurman]

It's a term used in so many different connotations that it's ultimately meaningless.

People say it when they think a course challenges the approach shot more than it challenges the drive. But WHY they think that varies a lot depending on who's saying it and the course they're playing.

As George mentions, a lot of "second shot golf courses" are just too subtle for the average player to understand. They feel like the tee shots are simple but the approaches are difficult. Often, it's because they don't understand how the angle they take off the tee determine the angle of approach they get, and how the design of the course creates a more difficult approach from sone angles than from others.

I also hear pros use it as a compliment for certain courses where the approach shot simply requires more precision and execution than the tee shot. Augusta National is frequently described as a "second shot course," as is Pebble Beach. It's almost a way of describing courses where the holes gradually become more dramatic as you get closer to the green so that approach shots are just a little more memorable than tee shots. There's an implied rhythm and quality to the course's routing and flow when people use the term in this way.

Then there's what Brent describes, where it's used less as a compliment or insult but more as just an adjective. A second shot golf course might just be a course where you really don't have to worry much off the tee but do have to hit good approach shots regardless of where you drive it. It's a subtle difference, but in this case the term is neither an insult or a compliment. It's just an accurate way of describing the challenge presented.

[Jay Flemma]

Jason, both you and Brent bring up great points...Brent's right to keep an eye on all sets of tees...the interesting thing is that often the right angle for a pro is a tough angle for a bogey golfer and vice-versa...a bogey golfer almost always has more of a problem with accuracy than distance control.

This is why I love Pete Dye's courses, though.  They really make you think.  Doak too...

[Josh Tarble]

Regardless of the meaning behind the saying, I find it interesting it was used in describing a Pete Dye course.  Now, I haven't played Teeth of the Dog, but of any architect I've played, Dye does the some of his best work in designing an interesting driving course.  In fact that, some of his courses I've played have skewed heavily toward interest in the tee shot and non-descript second shots.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm of course not necessarily aware of how it's being used in every case but I know when people play at my club for the first time, whether players or hacks or somewhere in between, they always sum it up in that general way. Whether they use the term itself or not.

But I'm firmly in the camp that says for angle play to be "strategic" in any meaningful sense we've gotta be talking about either substantial fairway widths or major contours and slopes within the fairways. As tricky as I find our greens to be, even on the holes where one side or the other of the fairway is clearly advantageous on a given day's pin placement that advantage is a tiny fraction of a stroke.

For there to be enough "strategic" advantage to justify aiming at a particular narrow slice of fairway or taking on a bunker I can not carry, you'd have be talking about a deal where from the middle of the fairway I have zero chance of getting the ball within 30 feet of the hole while from one edge or the other I'd be able to count on getting it within 10-20 feet if I strike the approach on the correct line. There's just not that stark a difference in fairway positioning more than maybe once a round, if that.

[Sean_A]

I too would consider a drive with very little apparent trouble, but with some premium on where the drive ends up as a secndo from the and shot course.  Inherent in this is the idea that recoveries (even from the fairway) from the wrong spot can be pulled but only with a cracking shot, however, most likely it is best to play safe and hope for chip n' putt par.  Below is an extreme example of what I am getting at.




Ciao

[Jay Flemma]

So Sean, does that prove the point that you need an extreme example to call something a "second shot golf course?"

Which course is that by the way?

[Jonathan Stewart]

When I hear "It's a second shot golf course," I think about courses that get more interesting the closer you get to the hole. I believe Ross designed a lot of courses that I could use this phrase to describe. I'm not suggesting that driving the ball well is not important, only that the amount of strategy increases on the second or even third shot.

Some courses I've played which have these characteristics are Pinehurst No. 2, Mid Pines, Broadmoor, and the Ross Course at French Lick. In my opinion all of these courses are more interesting from the fairway and at the green then they are from the tee.

[Brent Hutto]

I agree that there are courses where large portions of a typical fairway are to be avoided if you want any chance at a good score on the hole. Those would not be "second shot golf courses".

As I mentioned previously I believe, interest off the tee does not have to mean a plethora of water hazrds, cross bunker, tall rough and general punishment for anything other than a perfect shot. If fact genuine "strategic" play from the tee is the highest form of first-shot value that exists, in my opinion. It's just that genuinely strategic tee-shot play requires so much width and cunningly placed greens that it is very rare in my experience.

One danger of the, well I started to say "groupthink" but I'll just say "peer influence", on this site is starting to look for an see "strategic" angles in tee shot play where they just ain't there. I could do such an analysis on my home course, plot out a day's round with all things considered including wind and pin placements and turf conditions, execute a "strategic" plan resolutely...and cost myself a bunch of strokes by hitting into rough and bunkers with poor tee shots while gaining no meaningful advantage on the properly struck ones. Like the vast majority of courses, the best "strategy" is to maximize your changes of hitting a second shot from the short grass as close to the green as possible and not try to wheedle out little 1/10 stroke advantages by playing to smaller targets.

[Sean_A]

So Sean, does that prove the point that you need an extreme example to call something a "second shot golf course?"

Which course is that by the way?

No, I don't think so.  There are other less nuanced examples such as TOC's 1st and other holes there like the 14th.  Its just that Cleeve Cloud is unusual in that I believe it to be primarily a 2nd shot course for two reasons. First, its ever so hard to find hole in pocket (even if its the can't get out of the bunker sort) sort of trouble - much harder than at TOC.  Second, the green sites are very good even if they seem prosaic - so the second shots are more interesting, but there are "slyly" best positions to be in off the tee.  

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Note to self...no money game with SArble at Cleeve Cloud. Putting a sly devil like El Gringo on a slyly strategic golf course is a bit too much Brer Rabbit in the bramble patch!

[Phil McDade]

I tend to agree with Sean and Brent here, and one example might be Lawsonia Links. For me, partly (but a big part!), what I would consider a "second-shot" course would be one in which the penalty for missing a second shot is greater than the first shot (off the tee). Lawsonia's like that -- hardly any forced carries off the tee, you have to be quite wild or off-target to get into trouble off the tee (or unable to execute the risk-reward that Langford built into the course, ala the large bunker hugging the inside of the dogleg on the par 4 3rd hole). But Langford always gives one room to avoid a truly penal outcome off the tee at Lawsonia. But miss those greens with an approach shot? You're in trouble -- often lots of it. Tough up-and-downs from 5-10 feet below the green pad, or stuck in some cavernous bunker below (again...) the green pad.

That's not to say Lawsonia doesn't have interest off the tee -- there is plenty of it, and he understood and designed into the course preferred angles of attack and such. But while Lawsonia is generous with width off the tee, it's exacting with approach shots into greens. That to me is a second-shot course.

[Jay Flemma]

Phil, lemme chew on that for a bit.  as you know my chapter in the new Paul Daley Golf Course Architecture is on Lawsonia! I'm not so sure I agree...but I'll need tonight to get back to you

[Phil McDade]

Jay:

Would Pinehurst #2 be another? My sense is that course has evolved into one in which the demands on the player on the second shot are greater than on the tee shot. The Augusta National example was a good one, I thought -- the demands there on the second shot are often dictated by severe green contours, e.g., one can badly miss a second shot at Augusta, still be on the green, but be left with a very treacherous two-putt.

Compare to, say, a Pine Valley, where wayward-ness is heavily penalized, both off the tee and on second/approach shots.