Has pass/fail architecture diminished to the point of extinction with the

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Clearly a P/F test which is dictated by the land and isn't too onerous is a reasonable choice.  

Can you site some examples of penal situation involving OB or water which were not dictated by the land and are the most elegant solution?
There's an inherent conflict in your question.  How is water and OB not dictated by the land ?

Today, introducing water features close to fairways and greens can be a difficult if not impossible task, permitting wise.

And WHY would you want to introduce OB ?

Sebonack, NGLA, Shinnecock, Southampton, GCGC, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Atlantic, Seminole and Pine Valley all have OB, and they seem to be well regarded..

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Dr Mackenzie didn't have a "pass/fail" exam on his courses, there was always a way around trouble at the cost of an extra stroke or two."

Indeed. Didn't the good Doctor say a well designed course could be played with a putter?

Then perhaps you can tell us how to play # 15 and # 17 at CPC with a putter.

And, while you're doing that, you can tell us how to get around trouble on those two holes.

We can discuss # 16 as well.
I'd like to see how that would be played with a putter.

The holes you reference may be the only Mackenzie holes I can recall where you have a forced carry, with 2 and 14 at the Valley Club are others. 


The number of holes I cited is irrelevant.
The fact that I cited any, contradicts MacKenzie's own words by virtue of his actual designs, thus debunking David's post.

In no case is the carry over 100 yards, so hardly the stringent demands of Pine Valley. 

What are the stringent demands of Pine Valley ?

Start with # 17 and tell us what stringent demands are placed upon the golfer.

I have never had the opportunity to play Pine Valley.  The hilarious Littler-Nelson match on Shell's WWG is as close as I've come to a tour. 

Then you shouldn't have categorized the demands on the golfers as "stringent"

Why don't you let me know when it would be convenient for you to arrange a game for us so you can explain the course to me?

Anytime between 9:00 pm and 5:00 am would be good

Thanks. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The fact that I cited any, contradicts MacKenzie's own words by virtue of his actual designs, thus debunking David's post."

Pat -

There are exceptions to many, many rules, especially rules of thumb!


Then Bill shouldn't have made an absolute declaration and you shouldn't have supported it  

Now that you and Bill have tried to disrupt another intelligent thread can we get back to the subject matter ?
DT

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

How do you reconcile the proliferation of water hazards/island greens on modern golf courses (i.e. TPC Sawgrass) with your premise regarding the diminution of "pass/fail architecture?"

DT

[Bill_McBride]

"Dr Mackenzie didn't have a "pass/fail" exam on his courses, there was always a way around trouble at the cost of an extra stroke or two."

Indeed. Didn't the good Doctor say a well designed course could be played with a putter?

Then perhaps you can tell us how to play # 15 and # 17 at CPC with a putter.

And, while you're doing that, you can tell us how to get around trouble on those two holes.

We can discuss # 16 as well.
I'd like to see how that would be played with a putter.

The holes you reference may be the only Mackenzie holes I can recall where you have a forced carry, with 2 and 14 at the Valley Club are others. 


The number of holes I cited is irrelevant.
The fact that I cited any, contradicts MacKenzie's own words by virtue of his actual designs, thus debunking David's post.

In no case is the carry over 100 yards, so hardly the stringent demands of Pine Valley. 

What are the stringent demands of Pine Valley ?

Start with # 17 and tell us what stringent demands are placed upon the golfer.

I have never had the opportunity to play Pine Valley.  The hilarious Littler-Nelson match on Shell's WWG is as close as I've come to a tour. 

Then you shouldn't have categorized the demands on the golfers as "stringent"

Why don't you let me know when it would be convenient for you to arrange a game for us so you can explain the course to me?

Anytime between 9:00 pm and 5:00 am would be good

Thanks. 

I guess I can take that as a "no." 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
Depends on the lady, but I wouldn't necessary tell anyone who can't hit it at least 240 to seek out Pikewood--I do think it is a mistake not having a shorter set of tees. I don't enjoy that much golf course on a regular basis. I think the longest forced carries were about 150-160. The two par threes on the back and the 10th all required the ability to keep it in the air for awhile. The course is quite strategic for a good player, but it would beat up everybody else. I would say the same thing about Victoria National--if you can play the course will certainly make you think. But the penalty for bad misses is severe. I'm not going to put either of them in the league of Pine Valley by any means, but I think the goal was similar in the sense of designing courses to appeal to good golfers without a lot of regard for high handicappers. I wouldn't want every course to do that, but I appreciate and enjoy the challenge.

Andy:

That's not the only course.  One of the young women who works for me asked how women played the par-3 holes at Medinah No. 3 ... where could they put forward tees on those holes that would work? 

The answer is, they don't ... women play Medinah No. 2.  I had never really thought about it before then, though.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

How do you reconcile the proliferation of water hazards/island greens on modern golf courses (i.e. TPC Sawgrass) with your premise regarding the diminution of "pass/fail architecture?"

David,

Simple, you don't equate one controversial hole, created over 30+ years ago by Pete Dye,  as representative of a general trend.
Surely, even you understand that 

Weren't you the guy who cited the exception to the rule with MacKenzie and CPC, or did you forget about that ?

DT

[Andrew Buck]

I would guess there are many male golfers who couldn't make the par 3's at medinah 3 work as well, especially #2.

Honestly, my dad still carries a 6 and I'm sure there are days and winds where he'd need to catch all of a driver.

[David_Tepper]

"Simple, you don't equate one controversial hole, created over 30+ years ago by Pete Dye,  as representative of a general trend."

Pat -

Wait, weren't you the guy who cited #16 at Cypress Point as a violation of Mackenzie's rule of thumb? You can use 1 or 2 holes a being representative of a general trend, but I can't?

Which course poses more pass/fail questions, Pine Valley or TPC Sawgrass?

DT

   

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Simple, you don't equate one controversial hole, created over 30+ years ago by Pete Dye,  as representative of a general trend."

Pat -

Wait, weren't you the guy who cited #16 at Cypress Point as a violation of Mackenzie's rule of thumb?

No, I cited three holes on the same course, #'s 15, 16 and 17, proving that it asn't a rule of humb


You can use 1 or 2 holes a being representative of a general trend, but I can't?

That's correct.

You cited a specific architect and I refuted your claim regarding THAT SPECIFIC architect's work.
Others chimed in and further refuted your claim by citing other courses

You cited only one hole in the last 31+ years in the context of the entirety of architectural design.

Surely, even you understand the distinction 

Which course poses more pass/fail questions, Pine Valley or TPC Sawgrass?

I couldn't answer that question as I've never played TPC Sawgrass.

Have you played both courses ?

If so, what's your opinion ?

If not, how would you evaluate my answer ?

Now, can we go back to the issue/s rather than have you continue to try to disrupt another thread ?

DT

   

[Steve Kline]

Patrick:

I think I'm getting hung up on your definition of pass/fail architecture. It is clear that holes like #5 or #14 at PV have a pass/fail test - either you clear the hazard or you don't. In these instances the pass/fail architexture presents binary outcomes. Either you can find your ball and play it again or you cannot.

However, your other examples at PV, at least from my limited time there, are not the same type of pass/fail architecture. The outcome is not binary although there will be degrees of passing or failing. With this non-binary pass/fail architecture you can still find your ball to play it again. To the degree you succeeded of failed your next shot will be easier or harder.

I stress this because these are too entirely different styles of architecture to me. The difference strikes at the heart of the penal vs. strategic schools. While it is okay to have some of the binary pass/fail, or penal, architecture, it gets old when it is presented hole after hole. First, I don't want to be losing balls constantly. Second, I personally do not get any more satisfaction by pulling off the shot demanded in this binary pass/faill situation than I do in pulling off the shot in the non-binary pass/fail situation.

We can use Ballyneal as an example of a modern course that has pass/fail architecture without the binary outcomes. Hole 8 has this when if you miss the green to the right you have clearly failed. You most likely won't get up and done, but at least you have a chance. On hole 14, you don't get the ball past the false front then you have clearly failed. Getting up and down will be hard to impossible, but you have a chance at it. Kingsley has a number of examples as well.

So, basically you seem to be asking why have we gotten away from penal architecture. For me, the answer is because it isn't as much fun.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I've rarely, if ever, met someone who played Pine Valley, who didn't have fun.

They may not have scored well, but in general, they had fun.

I think the key factor for having fun is width, and Pine Valley has plenty of width,

As to the binary nature of pass/fail, what you and others fail to grasp, is that having failed, you get another chance.

And lost balls are not an issue.
Rarely, if ever, do caddies lose a ball.
Since 1964, I've only had caddies lose a ball on me one time, and that was on a tee shot in # 7 that was just off the right side of the fairway.
We thought it might have ended up in the base of a bush just off the fairway, but we couldn't find it.

For purposes of this discussion, let's take, # 17.

After a decent tee shot you're left with a slightly uphill lie to a green elevated above you, fronted with a moat like bunker.
The distance is relatively short, wedge to 8-iron

So, your approach shot is a pass/fail test.

If you pass, you hit the green.

If you fail, depending upon the degree of failure, you have to recover.

At Pine Valley, failure is more harshly punished, placing a premium on "passing"

At Pine Valley there's a heightened pressure on the golfer as almost every hole presents this test, albeit in a different form.

[David_Tepper]

"The Old Course at St. Andrews rarely appeals at first sight, and it not infrequently takes years before scoffers succumb to its many virtues … it is a course which caters to a higher standard of golf than any one has attained today, and yet it is extremely pleasurable to the old gentleman who cannot drive a ball any further than a lusty youth could kick one."

ALISTER MACKENZIE

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Sheer hyperbole !

[Andrew Buck]

Steve,

I've rarely, if ever, met someone who played Pine Valley, who didn't have fun.

They may not have scored well, but in general, they had fun.

I think the key factor for having fun is width, and Pine Valley has plenty of width,

Patrick,

While I clearly haven't had the opportunity to play the number of legendary tracks that you have, I would imagine it's hard to judge people having fun at Pine Valley based on the difficulty of the golf course alone.  For anyone that has been a guest, even if they are no stranger to legendary golf, I would guess they are going enjoy the experience of being at PINE VALLEY GOLF CLUB.  This is an experience that ranks among the hardest to obtain for most, and you're playing the course that you've always been told is the best in the world.  I'm not saying it isn't the best course in the world, it may be, I'm just saying I imagine the environment along with prestige will carry most to an "enjoyable day" even if the course doesn't suit their game.  

I, like most, know relatively little about the *Club* as opposed to the *Course*, but I would imagine the majority of members are national and very few golfers play there everyday.  The better question when assessing enjoyment, to me, is would a 12 handicap member have more enjoyment playing there 4 times a week, or at a more forgiving elite club that don't provide as stern of pass/fail every hole, like Cypress Point, Crystal Downs, Chicago Golf, etc.  I understand there are some elements of pass/fail on these courses as well, but not it doesn't appear as consistent.  I guess my thought is the mere fact people enjoy Pine Valley despite the difficulty may be misleading as so much more goes into that than the fact they have a couple 220 yard par 3's with forced carry and no bail out.

[Jud_T]

I once took French Pass/Fail in college.  I failed.  It wasn't a fun experience...

[Tom_Doak]

"The Old Course at St. Andrews rarely appeals at first sight, and it not infrequently takes years before scoffers succumb to its many virtues … it is a course which caters to a higher standard of golf than any one has attained today, and yet it is extremely pleasurable to the old gentleman who cannot drive a ball any further than a lusty youth could kick one."

ALISTER MACKENZIE

That is NOT hyperbole.  I caddied there for people who had never played a round of golf before in their lives, only hit balls on the range ... and they had a great time.  And there certainly are loads of older folks who love to go out on The Old Course.

Pine Valley is simply a different animal.  Nothing wrong with that, but one size does not fit all, in either direction.

[Bill_McBride]

David,

Sheer hyperbole !

From Mackenzie, Tepper, or Mucci?  

[Tom Yost]

IMO "pass/fail" architecture is a very predominate style on the modern golf course.  Not only that, it seems to be embraced by the majority of golfers. 

I'm talking about designs that force the execution of a single type of shot without option and the failure to execute results in a stroke (or more) penalty (water hazard, lost ball, OB).

[Dave McCollum]

Now PV was created and designed for the "championship" golfer, but, today it's enjoyed by a far broader spectrum.

Although, if you're not a solid striker of the golf ball, PV will punish you severely.

When I look at courses like PV, GCGC and NGLA, the number of pass/fail tests presented to the golfer is significant in number and not occasional.

I hear so many people comment that they don't mind a feature if it only appears a few times, but that they don't like a feature if it's repetitive.  Yet, PV, NGLA and GCGC have the pass/fail feature in abundance and no one can question the merits of those three courses.

Has modern day architecture failed to present those tests in abundance in an effort to cater to the lowest common denominator ?

Has modern day architecture reduced and/or eliminated those tests in the name of "fairness"

Has modern day architecture abandoned those tests in favor of tests that focus on length instead ?

Would you rather play the short but dangerous par 4 17th at PV or a 460 yard par 4 somewhere else.
Would you rather play the short but dangerous par 3 6th at NGLA and 2nd at GCGC or a 240 yard par 3 somewhere else ?

Are you a fan of benign architecture that gives you a hall pass or demanding architecture that will give your performance a passing or failing grade ?

Lastly, don't even mention slow play as an impediment for their creation.
Play at PV is in under 4 hours, thus debunking that theory.

I just skimmed this thread, so hold your remarks about my reading comprehension.  Also, I’ve never played any of the courses cited.  Probably also a moron.  However, when I read a thread like this from Mr. Mucci, I often wonder what golfers he is taking about.  The mid to high capper playing Pine Valley, Garden City, NGLA, Sebonack, CPC, etc.?  Well, that’s a rare bird indeed.  The vast majority of golfers don’t know these places exist, don’t care about the kind of golf is on offer there, and, in the very rare instance that they are given the opportunity to play, “enjoys” it because they get to slip beyond the guards into an exclusive fiefdom reserved for the ultra privileged.  Pat may as well be talking about an audience with the President, a round at ANGC, or a cruise on Paul Allen’s yacht.  What does this have anything to do with the golf most golfers experience?  Or architecture?
 
From my view in the trenches, most golfers don’t like difficult golf courses.  Not just high cappers, even so called good golfers howl when challenged sufficiently.  At our club we have something like 60 to 70 single-digit handicap golfers.  They are often the first to bitch about hard pins, difficult conditions, or challenging courses that put their “vanity” handicaps to the test.  So, from my viewpoint, it would be rather foolish to build and run a golf course loaded with a collection of pass/fail tests if the average golfer were the target demographic.  OK, some golfers might like test themselves against a challenging course once in a blue moon, but it’s more like tasting caviar and expensive champagne to see what it’s like, not a regular indulgence.

If Pat really wants to discuss his questions, the point seems mainly to be about demonstrating that “we” are not average golfers, can appreciate the nuances of salted fish eggs and fine wine, and smugly can bemoan that the unwashed masses are debasing our game by “dumbing it down” to appeal to a broader audience.   PV isn’t “enjoyed by a far broader spectrum.”  It was created as an elite joint and remains so today.  The same more or less applies to all of the courses he mentions.   The average golfer I know won’t question the merits of PV, NGLA and GCGC because they don’t know that they exist.  If they could play them, without knowledge of their history and all of the elite hogwash, they’d just get beat up and have little desire to return.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The Old Course at St. Andrews rarely appeals at first sight, and it not infrequently takes years before scoffers succumb to its many virtues … it is a course which caters to a higher standard of golf than any one has attained today, and yet it is extremely pleasurable to the old gentleman who cannot drive a ball any further than a lusty youth could kick one."

ALISTER MACKENZIE

That is NOT hyperbole. 

Baloney.

No golfer who hits the ball as far as a golf ball can be kicked is going to enjoy TOC or any other course.

Think about what you're saying.

That 50 yard drives would be huge tee shots with 30 yards or less the norm.

Maybe the fun would be the math part of scoring.

I caddied there for people who had never played a round of golf before in their lives, only hit balls on the range ... and they had a great time.  And there certainly are loads of older folks who love to go out on The Old Course.

Define great time.

Hit and giggle ?

Pine Valley is simply a different animal.  Nothing wrong with that, but one size does not fit all, in either direction.



Never said it did

[Dan Herrmann]

Just my opinion, but using PV and NGLA as examples leaves the vast majority of us scratching our heads because we've never played there.  Perhaps using more visited or widely seen courses as examples would help sell your position.

[Steve Burrows]

Moreover, it might help the discussion if we figure out if the original premise is even sound .  Pat asks if Pass/Fail architecture has diminished to the point of extinction but then cites two modern golf courses (Sebonack and Streamsong Blue) that, by his own admission, seem to posses these traits in spades (see Reply # 9).  Everything I have read about Mike Nuzzo's Wolf Point also points to a golf course that simultaneously demands performance while still having some mercy on the less skilled player.  In other words, the original premise is, at the very least, currently unsupported.

I wonder, then, whether Pat's assessment of modern architecture is actually true, or if he just hasn't visited, played and/or studied more of the newer courses with the same rigor that he has done with the many classic courses that are his default frame of reference?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

Three courses out of hundreds hardly supports your position and certainly doesn't refute any premise you somehow think I posited.

I would suggest that you reread the initial post and see if you can differentiate a query from a premise

[Doug Siebert]

No golfer who hits the ball as far as a golf ball can be kicked is going to enjoy TOC or any other course.

Think about what you're saying.

That 50 yard drives would be huge tee shots with 30 yards or less the norm.

Maybe the fun would be the math part of scoring.

I should think a "lusty youth" could easily kick a ball further than 50 yards on the turf found there.  But even if that was his maximum drive, why couldn't Mackenzie's old gentleman enjoy himself?  A guy like that doesn't care what par is, he's still going to have to pay attention to the bunkers, especially the ones that have slopes surrounding them that encourage balls to be hit into them.  He's going to have to navigate the slopes around and on the green.  He's only got one forced carry for a total of two yards, and so long as he can get the ball off the ground an inch or two he can make that.

You have a really myopic view of what people could possibly enjoy, thinking only in relation to "shooting a number".  It is quite possible to have fun playing golf without giving any sort of a damn what your score is or even adding it up.  I remember a thread a few years ago where you claimed I couldn't consider what I played to be 'golf' because I stated I didn't make shooting a low score my primary goal when playing.  If shooting a low score is all there is to golf for you, I pity you.

I suppose a guy like you never bothered to play the Himalayas when you visited TOC?  If you did, did you enjoy it?  Did you bother to keep score?  What is TOC for our old gentleman, if not a 6000 yard Himalayas with a bit of sand and gorse?  I think I'd have a ball playing TOC with just a putter, even if I had to play the 1st towards the 18th tee to use the bridge to get over the burn