[Mike_Young]

It has always been my opinion that hole locations were first in determining shot values followed by green placement, then turn ooint, then tee location.  And it has always seemed to me that the great courses that have stood the test of time separated themselves from the normal course by how precise a shot was required.  For example:   a 160 yard approach requires a 7 iron to a left pin behind a bunker.....course A will allow you to miss the seven iron a full half club and club B penalizes such a shot.  (B being the better course strategically)  Is the shot value the same for all players?  
Is this dorky enough for a saturday?

[Jason Thurman]

They're very tangible.

The idea that "shot values" is a term that has no definition is false. The definition is actually pretty clear. It's a simple question (paraphrased below):

To what extent does the course provide risk/reward scenarios while requiring a variety of shots?

I suspect that with a reasonable sample of relatively good players to study on a given course, it would be pretty easy to quantify both the variety of shots posed to the average player as well as the risk/reward present on a course. The former could be calculated by looking at the variety of clubs and shots hit by players, while the second could be calculated by comparing the scoring variation for players who choose one option against the variation for players who choose another.

It's a great fallacy that "shot values" is a term open to interpretation by the person saying it. The definition is actually pretty clear. The problem is that so many people use the term incorrectly.

[Tom_Doak]

The idea that "shot values" is a term that has no definition is false. The definition is actually pretty clear. It's a simple question (paraphrased below):

To what extent does the course provide risk/reward scenarios while requiring a variety of shots?

Jason:

How is that a simple question?  It is two separate questions that could have very different answers, magically combined together into one definition.  

Of course, that's not unusual for GOLF DIGEST's criteria for rating golf courses.  The definition of "Resistance to Scoring" asks "How tough but fair" the course is, while the ideal for Conditioning is a green that is "firm but receptive."  It's as if they are trying to fit a dozen different concepts into their definition of greatness, but they were only allowed seven categories.  

The only text on golf design which I know of that mentions "Shot Values" is the late Geoff Cornish's book, which seems to use a completely different definition.  His is about how one shot relates to another, but he strongly suggests that "shot values" should be balanced on a hole by hole basis -- that a hole with a tight drive should feature a less demanding approach, or a flatter green.  But most architects avoid the term completely, wary of golfers who provide fancy analyses of what we do.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Shot values definitely are tangible not intangible: highest where the course is located proximate to a large body of water or where the grass and bunkers alike are in fantastic shape.

[Peter Pallotta]

I'd like to pose a question/hypothetical to see if I can better understand this:

Two courses, A and B. Both are 6,500 yards long, both are Par 72, both are parkland courses, and neither has even a single water hazard. Both courses ask for/suggest a fade off the tee and a draw into the green on their front 9, non-par-3 holes, and a draw off the tee and fade into the green on their back 9, non-par-3 holes. Both course A and B have four Pars 3s, of 110, 150, 180, and 220 yards. Both course A and B are quite wide and forgiving off the tee throughout the round. BUT on course A, less than good distance or directional control on approach shots results in golfers salvaging par only a third of the time, so challenging are the hazards and green contours on the 12 harder holes (where a bogey is the average score). On course B, on the other hand, less than good distance or directional control on approach shots results in golfers salvaging par well over half the time, on 12 holes, as the hazards and green contours there are not so challenging at all; but on the other 6 holes, the hardest holes by far, double bogey is the average score.

Which course is rated higher in terms of "shot values"?

Both courses ask for the the same shots, and the same variety of shots. If course B forgives less than ideal shot-making on 12 out of 18 holes, is it rated lower on the shot value scale than course A, which forgives only 6 out of 18 times?  Does the fact that course B punishes less than ideal shot-making more severely (with double bogeys instead of bogeys) bring it up a bit closer in the ratings, or even have it rate higher than course A?

Peter

[Steve Kline]

Peter - if the risk is different do they really ask for the same shot? Perhaps the shots are the same through the air, but they could be completely different based on the ground. Even in your hypothetical one course might allow only an aerial attack while the other allows high shots or running shots.

Instead of the definition of shot values above, I like to ask the question does the course require a variety of shots? Are draws and fades required off the tee and into the green? Are high and low shots required? Does length vary substantially? Nothing irritates me than a course with four par 3s all in the range of 160-190 yards. I think that is about as lazy as a golf course architect can get. Are different shots around the green needed? If I'm asked to hit the same shot over and over it gets really boring, especially if it is your home course. Even better is whne different players will play the "same" shot with different shots.

[Matt MacIver]

Peter -

I think your two courses would have approx. the same shot values but A might be slightly easier, or more forgiving, esp. if you were off your game, not thinking or if the wind picked up or F&F was available.  Would B have a higher rating or Slope?  

I think B would play harder but am not sure the shot values would be much different, but I think you were defining values (probably correctly) from a mathematical viewpoint (12 over par) whereas I view shot values as every-shot-in-the-bag-being-required concept. Maybe that's why I don't score too good.

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
I like that description but I think the variable in all of this is the player.  
Let me try a baseball analogy. The pitcher is the architect and he knows he has a strike zone and the surroinding area for every batter just like the architect has a green and the surrounds.  The pitcher has an arsenal of pitches which he uses in and around the strike zone just like the architect uses his various strategies.  Different pitchers have different pitches just as architects have preferred strategies.  Now the batter is the golfer.  There are low ball hitters, curve ball hitters, high ball hitters, fast ball hitters.  The same pitch to all of the hitters will DEFINITELY get different results.  I think the same goes for "shot values".  A guy that can hit a ball high and long and is a good enough player to consistently hit the ball a specific distance with a specific club is not going to view a specific hole location as a shorter hitter that hits a low draw off the tee and hits lower iron approaches.  oh well...

[Jeff_Brauer]

PPallota,

That goes to show that shot values are somewhat subjective, no?  Some would call the recoverable course better in shot values, a few would say the non-recoverable course has higher shot values.......

I know we have covered this before, and I have written my definitions, which, as per above statement might amount to a hill of beans to many.  I think that one line definition Jason quotes from the Cornish book may have actually came from my mentor Dick Nugent.  At least I know he had a similar quote in the book, perhaps with the phrase "how it metes out punishment" worked in there somewhere.  I never thought it was enough, and tried to write something down to better clarify that years ago.

It is along the lines of words here, but I don't recall it.  It seems to me it is a combination of both the variety of shots called for, how well the golf course accepts those shots, and how much the golf course punishes them.  

For example, if a hole calls for feathering a butter cut mid iron to the back right pin, is that not the same shot variety value whether the guarding bunker is 2 or 20 feet deep?  To me, the shot value is the same (or maybe not, once you figure in fear) and what would make it different is:

*If the wind fought you or helped you - i.e., can you aim over the middle of the green, or with the wind, do you have to aim over the hazard (worse if its water)

*The target area was smaller than you could normally expect to hit with a mid iron.

*Whether the green contours give you any help at all, or if they reject the shot.

To me, if those aren't in line, and the target isn't very attainable,  then its a poor shot value even if the punishment is benign.  

Over 18 holes, there should probably be a mix of suggested shots (we can't require a fade, only provide features that make it a higher percentage shot).  There should probably be a mix of hazard types and difficulty, too.  

Both of these are predicated on the idea that we are trying to give each skill set (length/accuracy/finesse) some hope in competition as well as a mixture of challenges.  And, of course, its all things being equal - no sense trying to force a feature against the land, and nothing wrong with a course slightly favoring some type of player, but I would argue that balance is an ideal worth shooting for, again, all things being equal.

We could do the same analysis for hazard difficulty.  What is your overall premise?  That a shot missed should be a shot lost forever? (Fownes) Or that the player should be able to recover and stay in the hole/match despite being in a bunker?  I favor the latter, but others may disagree.  And, obviously, there should be a mix as per the balance tenant above.  Then we ask, of 14 long tee shots, what % should have 2 stroke penalty (water/OB), one stroke penalty (lateral water, deep bunker) half stroke penalty (shallow bunker, grass bunker, chipping area, etc.?)  In general, I favor more of the latter, but every course is a bit different, and I don't obsess over a getting a third of each.


The length of this answer only serves to point out what I found wrong with that one sentence definition.  Like TD says, its not an easy or singular question, nor is it one with exactly one right answer, even if we all argue we have the best personal opinion on the subject.

[Tom_Doak]

Peter,
I like that description but I think the variable in all of this is the player.  
Let me try a baseball analogy. The pitcher is the architect and he knows he has a strike zone and the surroinding area for every batter just like the architect has a green and the surrounds.  The pitcher has an arsenal of pitches which he uses in and around the strike zone just like the architect uses his various strategies.  Different pitchers have different pitches just as architects have preferred strategies.  Now the batter is the golfer.  There are low ball hitters, curve ball hitters, high ball hitters, fast ball hitters.  The same pitch to all of the hitters will DEFINITELY get different results.  I think the same goes for "shot values".  A guy that can hit a ball high and long and is a good enough player to consistently hit the ball a specific distance with a specific club is not going to view a specific hole location as a shorter hitter that hits a low draw off the tee and hits lower iron approaches.  oh well...

Mike:

This is an excellent analysis.

The analysis of shot values really depends on the player -- and every player is different, and therefore has a different view of whether they are balanced.  The better player thinks the higher handicapper should be punished for his weakness, or at least forced to go around and take one more shot.  And that's fine, but what's the balance?  Should be 10-handicapper be forced to play conservatively on every single hole?  And if he was, how would that separate him from the 20-handicapper, or does the 20-handicapper have to play a "C" route that costs him another shot?

Ultimately, too, it goes back to what you're trying to do.  Does the golf course really need each hole to sort out the more skilled players from the less skilled?  Doesn't their ability itself take care of that, more often than not?

[Ken Moum]

To begin with, terms like this are silly. Every shot in golf has the same value, one stroke. No more, no less.

And arguing about what it means is at least a little like arguing whether golf is a sport or a game. Or whether it's okay to say someone went golfing.

Unless  some language dictator decrees what shot values means, everyone will have their own definition, and none of them will be of much value in describing a golf course.

FWIW, golf is a sport.  And just like other sports, where hunters go hunting, riders go riding, shooters go shooting, swimmers go swimming and runners go running... Golfers definitely go golfing.

LOL

K

[BCrosby]

MikeY

Nice analogy. It captures the sense in which (a) the golfer's real opponent is the architect and (b) the problem faced by architects having to figure out how to serve up pitches to a wide variety of batters/golfers.

Bob

[Brett Wiesley]

This discussion thread is exactly why I joined the GCA!

First of all, I think it is nice to think about fade/draw for shot consideration.  However, I think if you really ask a golfer if he/she can reliably fade or draw the ball, off tee or iron, you'd find few who can do this.  I'm a scratch golfer, and couldn't do it.  I used to have a reliable 5 yard draw that I could push a bit more if needed.  However, in the last 5-10 years, it seems my ball goes pretty straight.  Result of the golf ball I'd assume.  I also see very few PGA tour players that really work the ball.

As far as shot value, I appreciate holes that reward you challenging a hazard off the tee to allow the better angle to the green on your approach.  I think the green complex has a lot to do with shot value.  A flat green with shallow bunkering does vary the challenge/shot value of the approach.  If the green has slopes and ridges then you need to tailor your shot to a side of the ridge, whereas a flat green you can miss your approach to the pin - and really have a simple putt from anywhere on the green.  The rub with sloping green contours, is that they do ask you to be in the correct segment of the green, or a 3 putt is likely.  Being able to find that segment of green takes a very accurate shot, and thus the heavily contoured greens punish the higher handicap player.  The architect needs to find that happy medium.  On occasion, playing a course with extreme greens, the surprise is that some high handicap players find the humpy bumpy greens FUN, but always say they wouldn't want to play them on a regular basis.  

Can't please them all?

[Tom_Doak]

 The rub with sloping green contours, is that they do ask you to be in the correct segment of the green, or a 3 putt is likely.  Being able to find that segment of green takes a very accurate shot, and thus the heavily contoured greens punish the higher handicap player.

Is this really more punishing to the higher handicap player than having more hazards around the green?  If so, why do courses with big, contoured greens and fewer hazards generally receive a lower slope rating?

I've always felt that it was beyond many golfers' physical ability to carry the ball 200+ yards over a hazard, but the ability to chip and putt is not correlated with size or strength, and in theory any golfer could get better in those aspects of the game.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brett,

That is why I have always generally favored gently sloping greens over one with tiers or knobs dividing them up.  In general, a gently rolling green rewards you proportionally with an easier putt the closer you are to the hole.  The multi tier green possibly takes a shot landing 5" from the pin and kicks it 40 ft. away.  Also, talking with the likes of JN, Lanny Wadkins, Larry Nelson and others of that major winner caliber, ask them what they think of multi tier greens and all have told me they are "okay, if there aren't more than 3 or max 4 per course."

I make most of my green centers pretty flat (there are exceptions) and contour the edges more.  That way, the conservative play to the middle is always a decent option for par, and the aggressive shots at the corners risk varying results.  

But, shot values (and my above statements) are general in theory, and there are obviously great examples of holes that vary from any particular value set.  That said, my mentors always classified variances as being pretty easy to go one over the edge from good golf with a few hard holes, to just plain goofy golf.  As always, the trick to gca is figuring out about where that balance is, and thus, while every hole might fall outside the "please me" it is unlikely all or most of them will.  You don't have to please every golfer all 18 holes, but you better please most of them for most holes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks gents - enjoying this thread, and the feedback to my question. My question/hypothetical was not asked rhetorically; I really was trying to understand what some mean by the term. But at the same time, I can't shake the feeling that, at bottom, a higher shot value "score" is just a nicer way of saying "harder". I play my local course, and it calls for/suggests/allows certain shots, and quite a variety of shots...but if you miss your shots, you're usually not too badly off at all - sometimes not at all.  I've played only one 'top ten course', Crystal Downs. It too calls/suggests/allows for a variety of shots -- but in my one play I found that if you miss those shots, you are really scrambling to salvage some kind of score. So I too, if I had to, would rate/score CD 's shot values much higher than my local course's. (Obviously, this isn't the main or only reason or even one of a dozen reasons why CD is a top ten and my course is in a different universe entirely.) But then I'm left to say: oh, I see, "shot value" is a scale of how much a shot matters, and if a mis-hit shot matters more (i.e. basically, costs you more strokes) on course A than on course B, then A rates higher on that scale.  But then I'm left with the feeling that we're just talking about being 'harder"...and that doesn't seem like the answer.

Peter

[Brett Wiesley]

Tom,  I think the slope system is odd to say the least.  More bunkers, water, etc. counts to a higher slope.  However, there are many very difficult courses with few hazards, and to this the course rating can be really high.  Such as a course with a par 72, rated 75 from the tips, but slope in the 130s.

Jeff,  As for there not being too many tiered greens, but okay if just a few.  In the case of "JN" his courses of late seem to have crazy greens.

[John Kirk]

Brett,

Could you give an example of a golf course with a course rating of 75, with a slope in the 130s?  If you can think of a couple, my guess is they have a slope in the high 130s.  In my experience, the average slope of a course with a 75 rating is between 140-145.

[Mark Saltzman]

Brett,

Could you give an example of a golf course with a course rating of 75, with a slope in the 130s?  If you can think of a couple, my guess is they have a slope in the high 130s.  In my experience, the average slope of a course with a 75 rating is between 140-145.

Cambrian Ridge: 75.2/129

Capitol Hill (Senator): 77.7/133

Highland Oaks: 75.7/133

Ross Bridge: 78.5/135

There's a few more... http://www.rtjgolf.com/scorecards/

[John Kirk]

Thanks, Mark.

In general, I think once you get to a slope of 140, the course is too severe and too penal.

[Ken Moum]

Tom,  I think the slope system is odd to say the least.  More bunkers, water, etc. counts to a higher slope.  However, there are many very difficult courses with few hazards, and to this the course rating can be really high.  Such as a course with a par 72, rated 75 from the tips, but slope in the 130s.

Jeff,  As for there not being too many tiered greens, but okay if just a few.  In the case of "JN" his courses of late seem to have crazy greens.

There's a simple reason why courses like that have a lower slope... It's based solely on the difference between the course rating (which is what a scratch player should shoot) and the bogey rating.

A long, hard course without the hazards that abuse bogey golfers won't have a much difference as a shorter course with lots of hazards.  So, when you plot the two scores on a greaph, the slope of the line between them is lower.

Personally I think low slope courses with relatively high course ratings are more fun. 

K

[John Kirk]

Shot values definitely are tangible not intangible: highest where the course is located proximate to a large body of water or where the grass and bunkers alike are in fantastic shape.

I have my own interpretation of shot values, almost indistinguishable from "golf course value".

[Jason Thurman]

The idea that "shot values" is a term that has no definition is false. The definition is actually pretty clear. It's a simple question (paraphrased below):

To what extent does the course provide risk/reward scenarios while requiring a variety of shots?

Jason:

How is that a simple question?  It is two separate questions that could have very different answers, magically combined together into one definition.

Tom, do you really think it would be that hard to quantify? It seems pretty simple to me. An easy way would be to track a few hundred rounds from players with 10 handicaps or better, tracking the dispersion of clubs hit per player to distinguish between courses that only test short iron play versus courses that require some long/middle irons and woods. That would establish the "variety of shots" component of the equation on some level (admittedly slightly reductionist, but I'm sure a smarter analyst could come up with a more comprehensive equation).

Then, to establish the risk/reward side of the equation, you would track those same few hundred rounds and note whether players took the aggressive or conservative route on a given hole. You'd compare the score for those who take the aggressive route and succeed against the score for those who take the same route and fail, and against the score for those who take the conservative route. You'd also probably want to identify how many players take the aggressive route vs. the conservative. That sounds complicated, but it's really not. My industry uses far more complicated measurements to evaluate how successful teams are. In my head, the measure definition would look something like the following (and this is probably stupid, but a real analyst could knock out an equation that actually makes sense pretty easily I would guess. Joel Lahrman might have some ideas):

(aggressive-successful scoring average)                                                               (# of times aggressive line chosen)
______________________________        x     conservative scoring average    x   ______________________________

(aggressive-unsuccessful scoring average)                                                            (# of times conservative line chosen)

The implication being that a course that tempts aggressive play and has a wide variation in outcomes for players who take aggressive lines would have more risk/reward than a course that doesn't do those two things.

[BHoover]

Jason, not to be a smart ass, but why would someone go to the trouble of trying to quantify shot value? In my mind, this seems silly. Shot values are inherently subjective and, therefore, are unable to be accurately quantified and reduced to some mathematical value. Besides, what happened to just playing golf?

[Jason Thurman]

Brian, what makes you say that they're "inherently subjective"?

I'm not sure where the term "shot values" originated. But if Golf Digest invented it as a category for rating golf courses, and they expect their rating system to function as any sort of source of truth, then quantifying the concept would make sense to add some shred of objectivity to their ratings. The definition they've chosen for the term also happens to lend itself to relatively easy calculation.

As for the question of why, I wouldn't personally bother with it. But the original post asks if they're tangible or intangible, and I think if you define shot values as Golf Digest does, then they're pretty tangible and wouldn't be hard to calculate using a measurement definition the same way that sabermetricians calculate things like VORP and Player Efficiency Rating. I personally would rather just play golf, but someone who gives a crap about trying to identify if some courses are objectively better than others might be interested in an objective measurement of shot values.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()