Strategic V Penal Design

[Mark Pavy]

Strategic- You won't be able to hit driver off every tee.

Penal- Take some spare balls.

[Mark Pearce]

Great strategy isn't great strategy if the punishment for seeking the best next shot and erring slightly isn't severe.  See post 15.  If the "better" shot isn't threatened, then what choice is there?

[Paul Gray]

I haven't seen anyone examine how the chance for recovery defines if a design is penal.

While a design can be penal and still offer some degree of recovery those features that offer little/no chance for recovery undoubtedly will allow a design to be deemed penal. Not all bunkers are penal but Oakmont's church pews, and to many the practice of unraked bunkers are markedly penal.

Therefore many of Sean's exampled penal holes at NB to me are mislabeled as such because the hazards don't necessarily preclude recovery

Chez Wardo

This is part of the problem people have in discussing penal architecture.  Penal design in the "classic" sense has nothing to do with the severity of the penal feature, its the placement which matters.  I agree that many folks will carry on about deep bunkers or water etc, but that is really a separate question.  Why?  because severe hazards can just as easily be used strategically.  The difficulty of any hazard is down to player ability while strategic or penal design is independent of ability. 

In a very real sense, it makes sense to have very severe hazards used strategically so long as the reward for taking on the risk is great.  If the hazards are on the other hand weak, many will not see much risk involved.  Its a balancing act with the severity of the hazard to match the design style.
 
Ciao

Exactly. Hence my reference to Doak.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great strategy isn't great strategy if the punishment for seeking the best next shot and erring slightly isn't severe.  See post 15.  If the "better" shot isn't threatened, then what choice is there?

On the other hand, it if is too severe, won't golfers just avoid it, negating strategy almost altogether?  See my earlier post for an alternative view.  All you really need is the possibility of losing a stroke, not the certainty of it.  Probably encourages more risk, which is more fun. 

I know most good players play very defensively, regardless of strategic theory of golden age architects.  Maybe like football coaches, we tend to get more conservative over time, from hard experience, but hazard avoidance is pretty strong component of modern strategy, even given the occasional "get in the bunker" yell.

On any par 4, what is the strokes gained maximum potential of driving near a hazard?  Given the 50-50% putting distance is about 6-10 feet at pro level, and maybe 4-6 feet at am level, and the standard proximity to pin is 10% of shot length at pro level and 15% at am level, (meaning no matter where they play from, they have only a marginally better chance of getting nearer the pin) 

So what rational golfer will gamble on an average tenth to quarter stroke gained at the risk of a full stroke lost in a deep bunker where he has to play out backwards or sideways?

Or maybe, we just need to make sure how we define "severe."  We might be talking the same thing and I might label it as moderate, who knows.

As has been oft discussed the trend to stroke play over match play has affected the ideals of the perfect strategic hazard.  Any 2 stroke penalty type can ruin a round early.   Obviously, par 5 holes are a chance to gain 1-2 strokes and can have harder hazards.  And, place in the round may affect it.  On later holes, all or nothing may make sense as you need it and have nothing to lose, save perhaps a few meaningless holes to finish should you plop it in the water or something.

Or the bigger question......has strategy evolved from where the old dead guys thought it would be?  Equipment may have changed it.  And, we can often ask the harder question - is there any real evidence that people played the coursed designed under those theories as they thought they did?  Starting with the prize winning hole, do we know all of those 5 routes would have been taken more than once a blue moon, enough to justify building them? 

Just throwing that out there for discussion.....   

[Mark Pearce]

Jeff,

Yes, of course.  It seems to me that the best architecture balances the benefit of playing a particular shot against the penalty of missing that shot.  It needs a really significant advantage to toy with OOB but significantly less of an advantage to play near to a relatively flat fairway bunker.  Holes like the 4th at Woking and the 16th at TOC demonstrate this balance well.

[Jason Topp]

Great strategy isn't great strategy if the punishment for seeking the best next shot and erring slightly isn't severe.  See post 15.  If the "better" shot isn't threatened, then what choice is there?

On the other hand, it if is too severe, won't golfers just avoid it, negating strategy almost altogether?  See my earlier post for an alternative view.  All you really need is the possibility of losing a stroke, not the certainty of it.  Probably encourages more risk, which is more fun. 

I have a particular distaste for par 3's with artificial ponds in front of the green for this reason.  I find that my best play is to simply bail out and go long because I am not good enough to try and hit it between the pin and the water.  I understand building such a hole if it is in a memorable location (such as at Teeth of the Dog or Cypress Point) but I do not understand why someone would build such a hole on an ordinary location. 

The 6th at New South Wales is a pretty unique example of using a great natural location in a memorable fashion while still creating strategic interest.  Because the water is not hard against the green, there is incentive to try and hit it between the flag and the ocean.

[DMoriarty]

Strategic Design . . .




Penal Design . . .

[Peter Pallotta]

Clever, and catchy graphic, David -- but perhaps a poor analogy, or maybe a very apt one (if we could but accept the facts)! The first course is only strategic in any meaningful sense of the word for the skilled sportsman; for the rest of us, it represents the potential outcomes of sheer luck and randomness, such that the results of our average (and almost inevitably poor) attempts may fool us into thinking ourselves more talented than we actually are, and might pre-dispose us to greatly valuing the charms and quality of said course for this very reason, i.e. because it flatters us so in reflection. The second course, on the other hand, is like a much clearer and cleaner mirror -- it shows us more accurately and honestly our shortcomings, and when we don't like what we see we (naturally) turn the wrath of our wounded pride against it instead of against ourselves. In that we are being unfair -- as the course is simply rewarding all of us equally and, dare I say, proportionally. A poor attempt by a skilled and unskilled sportsman will garner the same result, and indeed a fair attempt by a middling sportsman will have a greater chance on the penal course than on the strategic one of actually being rewarded handsomely!  A poor analogy or an apt one, that is the question!

Peter

[DMoriarty]

Peter, I don't think it a "poor analogy."  Nor do I think it an "apt one" in the way you suggest.  (Frankly you lost me when you started going on about how the dart board makes us think we are better than we are, and how the first target is not strategic for most of us because of the element of luck and randomness.)

Golf is neither darts nor target practice, so the analogy isn't perfect, but the two targets highlight important differences between penal and strategic design.  

People think "penal design" means penal hazards, but this is not necessarily the case.  Penal design is meant to measure and reward execution. The better the execution, the higher the reward.  The worse the execution, the steeper the penalty.  There is no real decision making involved.  Just aim at the bullseye.  The closer you come to hitting the bullseye, the better the score.  

That is the nature of penal design in golf.  Perhaps the best modern example of a penal design feature is graduated rough.  The further you are offline, the worse the result.  

As for strategic design, it is quite a lot more complicated.  People think risk/reward when the they think of strategic design, but unfortunately, they sometimes try to reduce this to some sort or hard mathematical calculation.  They mistakenly think that if all risks and rewards aren't clearly spelled out and readily attainable, then it isn't really strategic design.  In other words they think like you in the paragraph above --if the result is somewhat random and arbitrary, it can't be strategic.   Another example would be Niall's opinion of Castle Stuart.   He seems to want his strategic design to be clearly defined and delineated.  IMO, if one takes this too far then one strips strategic design of its soul.  

In great strategic design, the golfer never quite knows if he/she is making the right decision.

[BCowan]

Jason - the water for sure changes the risk/reward calculation, because going in the water is typically worse than going in an area of sandy, therefore trying to hug the hazard is a riskier shot. But the confusion you cite exists because 'penal' has two meanings. There is a penal hole, i.e. one which is specifically designed to punish mistakes and test execution, and there are hazards that are more or less penal (i.e. punishing) than others. A hole can have a hazard that is extremely penal but still be focused on strategy.

+1

[JESII]

I have to say...I think David's visual is shockingly representative...

If only we could accurately assess our skill and balance it with our desire to prove history wrong...

[Brent Hutto]

The dartboard analogy is tempting but there remains a fundamental difference. In golf you *eventually* have to hit the bullseye. You get no "points" for hitting a strategically-perfect target that's somewhere beside the hole.

If we wanted to really make a dartboard-like analogy that applied to golf, it would be if you had to throw your next dart from a distance corresponding to the numbered section of the board you hit with this dart. Hit the 20 and your next dart is from 20 feet. Hit the 7 and your next dart is thrown from 7 feet. Your score would be how many darts it takes until you hit the bullseye.

[DMoriarty]

Darts and Golf aren't the same game. That's why it is an analogy and not a description.