"Strategic" architecture vs "shot testing" architecture

[TEPaul]

Who sees a difference in the two--at least in principle?

It seems to me that many many golfers and even many very good golf analysts think about good "strategic" architecture as many ways (options) of acheiving the same ends--ie the same destination (green) and the same result (par).

While those architects who tended to dabble in "shot testing" architecture, such as William Flynn, sometimes Ross and particularly George Crump and William Fownes didn't look at architecture and the principle of it requirments quite like that.

Those listed might be considered the "shot testing" architects. The expectation and even the written description and admission was that certain holes and certain courses had basically one dimensional "shot testing" requirements and if a golfer failed to pass that "shot test" or elected not to take it or was simply incapable of it his patent expectation should be to drop at least a shot--perhaps more!

"Shot testing" architecture was definitely NOT the same kind of multi-optional design of acheiving the same destination (green) and expecting the same result (par) as many of us probably think of as great and ideal "strategic" architecture.

To me the best examples of the latter would certainly be TOC and would include such great American designs as Riviera, ANGC or perhaps even NGLA.

Examples of the former would be courses such as Pine Valley, Oakmont and Shinnecock, maybe Pinehurst #2 and Aronimink.

Do any of you see the differences in these two types of architeture as I do--at least in architectural principle?

It seems to me the subject is often avoided on here for whatever reason, but the primary one perhaps being that some of those "shot testing" designs we seem to otherwise respect don't really fit in the mold of what we think great "strategic" architecture is or should be.

Sometimes a course like PVGC is criticized on here for being undemocratic and unaccomodating of all levels of players and therefore less than "ideal".

Is this just the difference between so-called "championship" architecture and so-called "ideal strategic" architecture--or is there more to it than just that?

Or does it ultimately all boil down to the fact that "difference" in golf architecture is basically the essence of it all?

[Gary_Smith]

Could you rephrase the question? (I stepped out for a hotdog halfway through your post, and I'm having difficulty refocusing)

 

[George Pazin]

I was under the impression that PV & Shinnecock represented the best of both - that they were shot testing, but not necessarily shot dictating, if that makes sense.

I've always felt any idiotic could make a course that only dictated shots - but then again, I'm hopelessly biased.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Interesting. You are on to something, I think.

But to what extent is your notion of "shot-making" architecture just another way of saying "penal" architecture?

Bob  

[TEPaul]

"Could you rephrase the question? (I stepped out for a hotdog halfway through your post, and I'm having difficulty refocusing)."

Gary:

No I can't rephrase the question. My suggestion to you would be to step back out and regurgitate that hotdog and then step back in here and try harder to refocus!

GeorgeP;

You said;

"I've always felt any idiot could make a course that dictated shots -"

I don't think by this post I'm saying that courses like PVGC, Shinnecock et al dictate shots exactly--the choices are there for any player to take--just that the expectation of results are clearly not the same depending on those choices.

This isn't exactly my idea--I'm merely speaking of some of the things that Flynn and Crump wrote about what they were trying to accomplish.

When it comes to mulit-optional to the same end or expected result vs multi optional for different ends and different expected results holes can't get much more different than say PVGC's #5 or Shinnecock's #7 or #11 vs Riviera's #10---all wonderful golf holes by the way!

 

[George Pazin]

Knew that was too abrupt of a one-off.

What I was saying was that I thought PV & SH were shot testers but not shot dictaters & that was what makes them so special. This is a fine line distinction, but an important one, I think.

[Rick_Noyes]

I believe I see the difference you are making.  But I feel that you can only "test" shot making from one location, the tee.  Other than that you are "testing" two or more shots.

If you were to design a green complex that required a certain shot making ability, you would dictate that the player be in postion "A" in order to make that shot, which would dictate that the tee shot would also be the "test'. Hence, there would be no strategy.

I don't really see how a player could "not elect to take the test".

You could approach the premise by saying there are several ways to achieve the goal, but one way (if you have the ability) would prove to be the best.  In other words, here is the shot test presented, but if you don't pull it off, you're not dead.  You can still achieve the goal.  Not neccessarily strategic, but not neccessarily penal either.

[mike_malone]

 Tom
   I am confused.Using the Flynn course i know the best,i see many holes that seem "strategic",i.e.several ways to play from tee to leave different challenges to approach.#2,#4,#5,#6,#7,#8,#9,#10,#11,#14,#15,#17 all seem to have multiple strategies at RG.(Unfortunately, trees have voided most of this today)

   #12 could be a good test case for you and Wayne to play with Flynn's iterations as they relate to his concepts.Originally,there was a fairway bunker left and none right.This was a penal bunker for shots hit to the left to open up the hole.
    The approach from the right was protected at the green by the depth of the green,the height of the shot,and a bunker.

      The best shot was straight .Why did he come back within ten years and do away with the left bunker and add a right bunker and three little ones in back of the green?(no evidence that he was there)

  After the changes straight or left became the options and right was too penal.


   I think these changes recognized  that the 1926 version was less strategic.

[TEPaul]

"But to what extent is your notion of "shot-making" architecture just another way of saying "penal" architecture?"

BobC:

Not "shot-making"--"shot testing"--there's a big difference, at least to me.

When I think of "shot-making" my perception of it is it fits much more comfortably into the mold of what most people think of as "ideal strategic" architecture--basically many ways of acheiving the same destination (green) and the same result (perhaps par).

"Shot testing", on the other hand was considered and visualized by the likes of Flynn and Crump and Fownes as sort of a "ring the bell at the country fair" type of thing or at least "see how high you could run the weight up the scale". If you could do it (ring the bell that is) or chose to try in real "shot testing" architecture, it was very demanding for most for sure. The whole idea seemed to be not to offer situations (designs) that offered many and creative ways to play single shots (or a progression of them) to the same basic end (destination) or result (score) but more of a challenge to one's ability to analyze what he truly could and couldn't do or was likely to do--how well he could analyze what he was truly capable of at his absolute maximum best, in other words.

Could "shot testing" architecture as visualized and offered by Crump at PVGC be considered synonymous with "penal" architecture? Absolutely--no question of it at all. Crump mentioned this many times and in no uncertain terms. He believed if you chose to try something that was highly demanding and you failed to pass that severe test you should be penalized and very severely. Fownes very much felt the same way about his architecture and said so many times.

But the severe penalty should very much come from faulty choice as much as faulty excecution (faulty choice of course being overreaching your maximum ability or capacity). But the options they offered for choosing something other than the severe "shot test" was to definitely pay something for refusing to try the test in the first place--and do something (even ideally) more within one's capacity--and that something was definitely a shot.

But for those who tried the test and either failed to execute properly or for clearly mentally overreaching their ability the penalty was to be even more severe--more than one shot--perhaps many.

The real reason I make a post like this one is I'm so interested in the evolution of architecture both in what was being created particularly in that earlier era but also in why!

And writing a book on William Flynn, I clearly see where he was trying to take this evolution. He was trying to evolve it into something a bit more grey-area (than a PVGC and Oakmont) where the penalties were not so severe but that they should still clearly be there in the minds of all golfers. I think it's not coincidental that Flynn at his very best--clearly Shinnecock--created a design that has often been labeled "the hardest fair test of golf!" Again, I don't think Shinnecock happened that way by accident--it was clearly thought through in minute detail--both in principle and also on the ground. Flynn was evolving in interesting ways from those laboratories where he cut his teeth--Merion and PVGC!

I wrote a long article not long ago about the original Philadelphia School of architecture--a "school" that I believe the unique "American Championship" golf course emerged from. Primarily the school resided at PVGC and its long and collaborative creation.

Another reason I make a post like this is I see what I think is too much analysis of golf architecture in the sort of reward side of the overall risk/reward equation that is and should be all good architecture. I see too few analysts even very good one look closely enough on the risk side of the equation.

Most talk about holes and compare them as to which is easier or harder to make a par on or perhaps a birdie (the reward side). I'd like to see that analysis always combined with a commensurate discussion or at least recognition of what the worse scenario (risk) may be or is likely to be. That's total golf to me--that's thinking golf--the very best kind of all.

I believe so many golfers and even analysts focus so much on the reward side of the all encompassing "risk/reward equation", sometimes even to the exclusion of considering or noticing risk that it should be renamed the REWARD/risk equation.

As you can tell, Bob, there's definitely in this thread a real undercurrent of that scoring spectrum barometer we once talked about on here that you tried to develop statistical analysis for to determine if it meant something as to the quality of golf holes.

I think it does and I think you do too--and I think a lot of it has to do with recognizing and understanding the differences in architecture (and certainly the differences in how to play different architecture--that there was and maybe should be real "shot testing" architecture (with its penal downside) as well as what's considered the more "ideal strategic" type.

I just love the evolution of it all and when you look back or even forward it's OK that there is such difference!

Matter of fact, more and more I feel that the vast differences in architecture (severe "shot testing" architecture all the way to the most imaginative mutli-optional "end up at the same detination and same result type of super ideal strategic architecture") is truly the essence of golf!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Could you list any courses that fulfill both goals(testing and thinking) and would these be considered great? if not greatest?  

As I read the original post I thought of the holes that have a true redan nature to them. Since 95% of my golfing life has been a left to right ball flight hitting that draw was until recently not an option. Now, I could and did hit a fade and the accuracy needed was greater than that of it's alter ego, the draw. The downside always seemed greater to miss the green with my fade, where a draw needed less precision to end up O.k. Is the Redan an example of testing or thinking or both?

[TEPaul]

"I believe I see the difference you are making.  But I feel that you can only "test" shot making from one location, the tee.  Other than that you are "testing" two or more shots."

Rick:

Absolutely! When you say 'you can only "test" shot making from one location, the tee' that's another concept or let's say reality that I feel most all golfers have fallen into. They look at strategy, if they look at it at all, in single shot increments almost exclusive of what comes next. This has gone on so long that architecture today constructs right into that "single shot" mentality of architecture. You just solve this particular problem and once that's done you solve the next one.

And what does that end up doing or creating in architecture? It ends up just basically following some architect's "garden path" or not. Is that the most enjoyable thing to do in golf? Not to me it isn't. I don't even really know how so much modern architecture got to that point--I don't know whether golfers sort of made or asked architects somehow to do that or architects did it for some reason and golfers just went along with it and accepted it as the norm and the necessary in golf.

The better architecture to me is when the architect can seem to somehow take himself and his own ideas out of the equation as to how any golfer looks at and plays his course. The best architecture to me is when the most golfers feel they can find their own unique ways (strategies).

You bet real strategy is putting two or more shots together and real "shot testing" architecture is putting together two or more of one's absolute best two or three shots or recoginizing that a price will very likely be paid--always in dropped shots resulting in higher numbers (the effects of the risks).

This is why I find a man like Max Behr so fascinating when he says that the best and most thoughtful architecture is a hole, for instance a par 5, where that interesting little bunker up by the green basically occurs to the player on the tee before he hits his tee shot. That's what Behr calls creating "unity" in architecture. That means to me that when that occurs to the player on the tee the player may then create his own unique strategy (plan) to deal with that little bunker way up there best long before he comes to it. In this way the player may not seem to be dictated to be anyone as he creates and executes his plan (strategy--ie what he ideally wants to do throughout the entire hole!).

But then one needs to ask how would a Max Behr arrange the other features on that hole to perserve the thought of that bunker two to three shots hence up by the green in that player's mind standing on the tee before deciding what to do. Well, that's obvously very interesting too and is a subject for another day that begins to get into the essence of all of Max Behr's fascinating philosophies on golf architecture.

You also said:

"If you were to design a green complex that required a certain shot making ability, you would dictate that the player be in postion "A" in order to make that shot, which would dictate that the tee shot would also be the "test'. Hence, there would be no strategy."

That may be so--and in a real way I am saying on this thread that the style of architecture I've tried to identify on here by a few examples (PVGC, Oakmont etc) as real "shot testing" architecture just may not be what so many on here think of as "strategic" architecture--at least not in the same way as they perceive multi-options of arriving at the same destination or result in many ways as almost the requirement of good strategic architecture.

But I think of some of what I call real "shot testing" architecture as very strategic too--just in a very different way I think. To me the latter is basically more of a numbers evaluation before you put the tee in the ground.

Take a hole like Riviera's #10. Anyone who can hit the ball fairly long and decent can look at that hole from the tee and see at least three really distinct choices of both distance and direction that can result in approximately the same overall result over time given the risks and rewards of each option. That's what I would call an incredibly well balanced strategic golf hole in the "ideal" sense that many of us probably think of as classic strategic (multi-optional) architecture.

On the other hand one with the same ability can stand on the tee of CPC's #16 and look at two really different choices--one the extreme "shot testing" go for the gusto and grab the brass ring or come to ruination option or the other to the left with the expectation of far less risk and probably much less reward.

I probably wouldn't call those two latter options (CPC's #16) well balanced at all--except of course in the minds of some golfers for all kinds of odd and varied reasons.

Both to me are strategic but in vastly different ways--although I don't think real "shot testing" architecture is strategic to most on here at least nothing like the more classic strategic Riviera's #10 is.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I guess I might say that one of the best examples of both probably would be ANGC and many of its holes, certainly in the way it was originally designed.

Holes such as #11, #12, #13 have very distinct strategies, one of real severe shot testing (basically two high risk great shots strung together on #11, #13) and then the other conservative much lower risk and reward option of playing the holes conservatively. Certainly the Road hole has two distinct strategies, one of severe shot testing and the other very conservative.

#11 ANGC apparently was doubly interesting originally with it's massive unencumbered tee shot design as very few professionals could decide on where the best place to hit their tees balls was on that massively wide fairway. That say a lot right there to me.

Of course at ANGC it was always supposed to be the greens themselves in their fascinating shapes and contours that talked the high risk/high reward "shot testing" strategy and the low risk/low reward conservative strategy all the way back to the tees!

[Dan Kelly]

Take a hole like Riviera's #10. Anyone who can hit the ball fairly long and decent can look at that hole from the tee and see at least three really distinct choices of both distance and direction that can result in approximately the same overall result over time given the risks and rewards of each option. That's what I would call an incredibly well balanced strategic golf hole in the "ideal" sense that many of us probably think of as classic strategic (multi-optional) architecture.

Tom et al. --

Wondering  -- as someone who hasn't played Riviera:

Wouldn't an "ideal" strategic hole not only offer various options, but also force (or, rather, inspire) the good player to freshly weigh those options every time he plays it -- depending on the hole location, the wind, the maintenance meld of the day?

Does Riviera No. 10 force (or, rather, reward) that daily reconsideration? Or do players tend to find their one way of playing it and stick with it?

[TEPaul]

Dan:

Now that's a super excellent question. I'd give you a most interesting example to indicate how I feel about that and Riviera's #10 and its incredibly well balanced multiple and distinct options.

At the pro tour level all those guys are so good, particularly ones in contention at the end of the tournament that generally we see them basically doing the same or very similar strategies on most all holes.

But almost never with Riviera's #10 and that to me is the proof in the pudding of the hole's quality and greatness.

The particular example I love occured in the LA Open in 1998. The final group, consisting of Tiger Woods, Davis Love and Ted Tryba, all in contention, and all at about the same number on Sunday came to that hole and played it in vastly different ways.

When I saw that I said; "Wow, this hole basically has it all when it comes to fascinating multiple options and strategies." Mutiple options and strategies are great but when all of them are used all the time by different players all of real talent something really special has got to be going on with that hole.

GeoffShac said last year Tiger tried to play it by cutting a 3 wood onto the green--that didn't work very well in four tries so next year he'll probably try something entirely different!

There's a man at my club who came here from Riviera and I asked him last year how he felt about #10 and he said; "I don't want to talk about that little devil--I never did figure it out--one time I thought I figured out how to play it and next time out that strategy completely screwed me!"

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

There is certainly a vast difference between the two types, although I like that you have avoided the word "penal" because it has too many negative connotations.

If you look at that GOLF Magazine ranking, the top ten courses are divided fairly evenly between the two types, and few of the panelists seem to recognize the difference!

I was standing on the eleventh tee at Shinnecock the other day thinking how it's really too severe of a golf hole for about 96% of people ... there's really not even a good choice of spots to miss the green and try and get up and down.  The same goes for the 17th at Sand Hills or the Postage Stamp or the 13th at Merion.  And the people who love "strategic" architecture are some of the first to nominate these among the greatest of par threes!

I'm not saying they're awful, and there's certainly room for a few "testing" holes on any course.  It's just funny how people go back and forth without recognizing the difference.

[TEPaul]

TomD:

Your post #15 is reinforcing much of what I'm trying to describe and say on this thread, particularly when you say;

"I'm not saying they're awful, and there's certainly room for a few "testing" holes on any course.  It's just funny how people go back and forth without recognizing the difference."

That's where I'm trying to go with this. I know what you mean too about menitoning the word "penal" and it's negative connotations to some or maybe even many otherwise accomplished golf analysts or golfers.

That's what I'm trying to expose here. Bob Crosby did ask me if what I was saying about real "shot testing" architecture might be somewhat synonymous with "penal" architecture and I said in the minds of some of the old architects there's no doubt it was!! I think it's ridiculous to talk about architects like Crump or Fownes and fail to recognize that penal architecture was part of their mindset! But how and why is the question and subject that's so little understood, in my opinion!

And to really understand it, it doesn't really work all that well to look at what they were up to so long ago in the context of today's game either. How about looking at what they were up to and their mindset for the game they were designing for? My God, how could anyone not agree that had immense elements of the penal in it. But how and why is the question.

The how and the why of it is the fascination to me! Actually Crump and Fownes, two men who knew each other well and apparently collaborated a good deal at Pine Valley went about the structure of their severe "shot testing" architecture in almost completely opposite ways.

PVGC was designed as a course that primarily featured good fairway width but primarily relied upon perpendicular cross hazarding for its challenge and demand. Oakmont, on the other hand, relied on less fairway width and almost completely on flanking hazarding that was immensely penal--ie even furrowed sand! Two almost polar opposites--one being perpindicular, the other being inline, but both to basically the same "shot testing" effect.

I'm just looking for more analytical honesty amongst some so-called classic strategic advocates on here when it comes to what was going on at certain times and courses and why. I am because I think the evolution of it all is frankly just fascinating but one has to be honest about what it really was and wasn't.

And then when one looks at how an architect like William Flynn tried to evolve his design character out of those architectural principles in various ways and for various reasons--that's just as fascinating to me!

Not to mention a completely fascinating architectural philosopher like Max Behr and how he tried to deal with the subject of strategy and penality. He certainly did have his own unique ideas about design structure and strategy but when it came to the subject of penality one can hardly deny that the best he could do was present it in a sort of "glass half full" mindset instead of a "glass half empty mindset. And to think that all these architects were practicing and philosophizing about what to do and what not to do in the same basic era!

I think it's fascinating to see more clearly what SOME of these early architects were truly up to and why because it makes one understand better where things went later and why.

Ultimately one might have to come to terms with the fact that they may not have really been right in what they were doing and trying to accomplish because it's hard to deny too that in many significant ways the world or architecture and golf departed from what they were doing and where they want the art of architecture and the game to go.

In this very sense I'm seeing a guy like Flynn more and more as an interesting transition! But why didn't the evolution of architecture follow these seminal and significant chararters in architecture better? Did those that came after them wimp out and fudge it for some reason? Did they decide it was more prudent to follow all the little odd sentiments of their clientele, the golfer, instead of trying harder to lead him? Or was it some combination of that or something else entirely?

I'm even completely fascinated by you, Tom, and where you think you're going or would like to with the art and structure of the architecture you're doing or would like to. Certainly many see you as immensely talented with a great base in the history and evolution of architecture to draw from if for no other reason than you've bothered to see and study so much more of it (particularly the old) than anyone else.

But even you seem to sometimes vacillate between what appears you might really like to do and what you think you have to do! You're certainly about the most participatory and informative of any of the real architects on this site--I think you should tell us what you'd really like to do if all today's mindsets and strictures were removed and you could really let it all hang out.

I'm no architect but given the chance I'm willing to say what I'd like to see and do--even if just one time!

[A_Clay_Man]

One of the distinctions Tom Paul may be looking for is that one strategy would be to play the course where the least amount of "shot testing" is needed. But on courses where there is no option no choices,  you are less likely to find any spot, where the least amount of "shot testing" is required.

Does that make any sense?

[TEPaul]

"One of the distinctions Tom Paul may be looking for is that one strategy would be to play the course where the least amount of "shot testing" is needed. But on courses where there is no option no choices,  you are less likely to find any spot, where the least amount of "shot testing" is required."

Adam:

I don't think that's what I'm trying to say. Take Pine Valley for instance. There's app. 1/3 to 1/2 the course (holes) that have a shot or a couple on various holes that one needed to execute awfully damn well when the course was built! If a golfer (from that era) chose that strategy the "shot(s) test" was very demanding and if you failed it the penalty was meant to be quite severe too.

But the real key is that there are alternate ways to play those high demand "shot test" holes (or parts of them) but the clear expectation was that you'd be giving up at least a shot! The latter is very important to understand---in principle.

The other side of the coin to high demand "shot test" architecture might be best evidenced by a course such as TOC or perhaps ANGC, considered to be highly strategic and optional to the same end-- where many different options to achieve the same destination (green) and the same number (par) are available.

[Mark_Fine]

What would #17 at the TPC at Sawgrass be considered - penal or shot testing as you call it?  How about #7 at Pine Valley?  

[TEPaul]

#7 PVGC was designed as a "shot testing" (2 shots) if I ever saw one. A good drive and a good second shot or you're in Hell's half acre. Same with TPC's #17--hit the green or you're in the water--pretty penal for failing the test I'd say!

[Eric Pevoto]

Tom,

Aren't you talking about what's been labeled heroic architecture?  The options exist, roundabout route vs. tempting route, including the spectrum of combinations.  

The whole risk/reward equation falls flat if the most tempting route doesn't offer a penalty (or penalties) in balance with the reward.  Tragedy/Hero

Isn't the situation similar to Behr's discussion on man vs. nature, which has been discussed before?  IMO, it's one of the more interesting concepts discussed on this board.

In a situation with options, the golfer who opts for the testing route and fails has nothing to blame but his own ability (physical or game management).  

If the situation or shot is simply dictated to him, is he then more likely to blame the architect, the one who has set up the situation?  I understand that Behr was specifically discussing the golfer recognizing man's hand in feature design, but isn't this basically the same concept?

The most fun courses I've played have a variety of both.  I can tell you of a new one that qualifies.

While I've not played it, I have walked it, and I wonder, if PVGC #7 offered an alternative route, but rewarded the player who played two strong shots over Hell's Half Acre, would it be a better hole?  Perhaps if you looked at it in the context of that single hole, alone, it could be improved upon with an alternative route.  

On the other hand, with those two testing shots sitting in between the 6th and 8th, both holes with great angles and options, I believe it offers variety and rhythm at that point in the round.

   

[DMoriarty]

Damn you and this thread TEPaul.  

I have been trying to get my thoughts together on this issue since you started it but I have been frustrated and disappointed and unable to convince two of my friends even the most basic tenents of strategic architecture so here it is the middle of the night and I have a VERY early tee time but I am thinking about this thread and thinking and have what are probably trite thoughts and a trite analogy yet here I am typing as fast as i can hoping that what comes out will be worth the way i will feel in well less than 3 hours when the alarm goes off.  That is my risk and reward tonight and either way it is penal

So I was thinking I was missing something crucial, something about the state of mind of the player, and suddenly I am thinking about football vs. football.  Okay I am american so really what i mean is soccer verses football. . . and then it hits me, if you take a superficial, distant view of both (easy for me). . . Soccer is analogous to strategic golf and football to "shot testing golf" but more on that further downnn the page

First . . . I dont understand your "there are options in shot testing architecture bit"  Sure it is probably a continuum but where are the options on 17 Stadium?  Where were the options on quite a bit of bethpage the way it was set up (except for 4 and probably some others)?. . . Again it is probably a continuum, but if there are real meaningful options (meaning more than one route to get possibly get to a similar result [like playing for a one putt birdie vs. flirting wiht the creeek on ANGC 13] then I think it strategic even if one of the options has a component that is similar to what one might find on a "shot testing course"  The key is 1. WHETHER THERE IS REALLY MORE THAN ONE ROUTE (LITERALLY) TO GET TO THE HOLE AND MAKE A GOOD SCORE (a RELATIVE TERM) aND 2.  WHETHER THE GOLFER HAS A REAL, MEANINGFUL CHOICE OF WHICH WAY TO GO.

The only caviat I think is that in true strategic golf there should be at least one non-shot testing route for the weaker player to choose.

I dont think a "testing" route is necessary for a strategic hole but lots of them have routes which have a test and a severe penalty for failure . . .I THINK THIS IS WHERE MANY GET SIDETRACKED . . . THEY SEE THE PENALTY AND SAY WELL THAT IS "TESTING" SO THEREFORE THE HOLE IS NOT STRATEGIC . . .

Perhaps shot testing architecture (I prefer "shot value" architecture because it emphasizes where I am going but I will use your term) is that which creates a risk/reward scenario where the golfer is only concerned with the immediate shot before him.   If he is on the tee, he is only concerned with executing the tee shot then as Shivas would say he goes and finds his ball and then he is only concerned with that shot, then only with the next etc.  "Hit the island green or I am dead . . . draw it around the trees with the slope of the fairway or I will be in the trees or in the ravine . . . clear the forced carry or I will take a big number. . ."  A successful hole is the aggregate of a bunch of seperate events each with an independent test. . .

Think football american pro football.  Cut to the quick:  IN PRO FOOTBALL ANY ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE RELATIVE TO THE WIDTH IS NULL AND VOID BECAUSE THE BALL GOES BACK TO THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD TO START OVER EVERY PLAY . . .  this is shot testing architecture . . .  Run a play . . . get tackled.  Reset the ball in the middle of the field . . . THAT IS A KEY, THEY RESET THE BALL-- IN THE MIDDLE-- AFTER EACH PLAY . . . then run another play. . . sure the players want to score and to score they must move the ball down the field but THEY NEED NOT THINK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE BUT THE PLAY THE COACH READ: ARCHITECT GIVES THEM AND EXECUTING TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY. . . sure there is strategy in the play calling and execution and the coach probably has a long term plan but the players need only focus on the immediate futer . . .   execute on that play . . . make the block . . . make the tackle . . . catch the pass etc.   So this is testing architecture , perhaps?

Now lets switch to strategy.  Strategic architecture must allow a mindset where the golfer considers much more than just the next shot . . . THE PLAYERS IS LIKE THE FOOTBALL COACH  AND HAS TO KNOW WHERE HE IS GOING NEXT AND NEXT AND NEXT . . . strategic architecture must provide room for the game to flow from shot to shot . . . he is thinking of the hole in its entirety and the only purpose of the first shot is to serve the next one and the only purpose of the next one is to serve the next. . .  No pop quiz, for eazch shot just an essay which must be organized and flow from begining to end . . . In the extreme he will start with where he wants to putt from and think of the easiest way to get there and then work his way back through all his shots to the tee all the while thinking about the potential outcomes of the choices, so there very well may be very "penal" risks for the golfer who decides to take those risks but IT HIS HIS CHOICE WHETHER IT IS WORTH IT TO TAKE THOSE RISKS . . . And you are correct Tom about balancing the risks and rewards I think . . . the harder it is for the golfer to figure out what he should do to best benefit himself throughout the hole the better the strategy component is of the hole . . .

To an american and because all americans love american football soccer seems bizzare because they just endlessly kick it back and forth and it is very very boring and then suddenly wham a goal or not but then its back to the running around and passing and it is not worth the wait . . .  BUT IN SOCCER YOU DONT RESET THE BALL, THE PLAYS ALL RUN TOGETHER. . . .  SOCCER FLOWS not even an american can deny that . . . How do you tell where one play ends and another begins? well there may be a way but not one that is obvious in the flow of the game and even if you could identify seperate plays it doesnt matter because the beginning of the last and the end of the first are the same . . .AND IN SOCCER WIDTH MATTERS,  YOU CANT JUST RESET THE BALL AFTER A SUCCESSFULL PASS YOUVE GOT TO GO FROM THERE . . .

i know, in golf you cant reset the ball, but that is basically what the architect does . . . pass this test and you move on to the next one from the same place but that place isnt important because passing the last test basically put you back in the middle of the field . . .

Damn I hope this makes sense to somebody.  Good Night.  

[TEPaul]

David:

What a post. I wasn't planning on fielding such thoughts this early in the morning but seeing as you're now probably out on the golf course with three hours of sleep dragging your ass around I think you definitely deserve some thoughtful answers to your post.

First of all, it's a bit hard for me to answer all the strategic soccer and football analogies to golf's strategies since I view the structure and strategies of those two "games" as too different from golf and its structure and strategies, for a number of reasons.

Golf is so unlike many of the other games as A (player's) ball in golf is not vied for as in such games as football, soccer, tennis etc. That fact immediately makes comparing the sports and their strategies quite difficult or perhaps in some ways meaningless.

But even Max Behr (whose brother, BTW, was a world class tennis player) did attempt to compare the strategic structure of a tennis court in the context of the "game mind" of man and his on-going attempt to create more of a defined, bounded and specifically dilineated structure in golf architecture and its strategies--which in many ways he viewed, obviously, as stultifying to a more natural and open architectural structure and strategies that he occasionally referred to as "wild golf".

This is much of the meat of his distinction between golf the "sport" and golf the "game". Clearly Behr preferred the former and was concerned about the onslaught of the latter (man's "game mind" always setting rules and boundaries) as he viewed it as always impinging on Nature's side of the balance in natural golf and its architecture (the "sport").

So I'd prefer to use tennis as the analogy to golf rather than football or soccer only because Behr did. Behr spoke of the side-lines of tennis as the "pressure points" of the structure of the game just as he analogized and spoke of the "pressure points" of hazards in golf and its architecture.

What did he mean by "pressure points" in both games? He meant those were the areas of highest risk for the player--but obviously the ones for the greatest and most immediate reward as well.

In tennis the sidelines were the greatest RISK to the player trying to place his ball near it due to the greater likelihood of going "out" (the boundary) and losing what he called the "medium of exchange" in the game--the point!

On the other hand, the likelihood of REWARD was heightened at that sideline "pressure point" as that was the place the opponent (the human opposing force vying for a common ball that golf does not have) was least likely to get to and return the ball and oppose his opponent (player)!

And unbelievably, and probably in someways hard to understand, Behr transformed in his analogy of tennis (architecture) to golf architecture the dimension of HEIGHT to basically take the place of the "pressure point" sideline of tennis (being only a dilineation of length and width) AS WELL AS the opposing force of the tennis opponent vying for a common ball.

As golf is not played with a common ball and is played only as opponents playing in tandem, the dimension of height essentially became, to Behr, the "hazard dimension" in golf again to take the place of the sideline "pressure point" of tennis as well as the opposing force of the opponent (to return the ball from the sideline "pressure point").

Clearly hazards do have length and width but I think one can see how the idea of penal height is important and significant to the hazard feature in relation to the length and width of safe areas (fairways).

To go farther and reiterate that golf is a game played with a ball NOT vied for by a human opponent, as in tennis, soccer and golf, the "medium of exchange" (in Behr's phraseology) becomes a shot or a stroke--as in tennis it's the "point" and again in golf (and its architecture) the hazard feature in a way takes the place of the opposing force of the opponent in tennis as well as the opposing reality of going "out" at the "pressure point" of the sideline boundary and losing a "point".

Again, golf's structure and reality is the increased potential of losing a "stroke" at golf's "pressure point" (the hazard feature) or potentially gaining a "stroke" by challenging successfully that "pressure point".

I hope all this in some way relates to your thoughts and analogies of soccer and football to golf and its strategies. But my overall point in this thread is really only to stress that in real "shot testing" golf architecture the demand is very great to realize a reward (playing the hole in less strokes) but that  the realization should also be great that failing that severe "shot test" is also costly (to very costly) in strokes lost. And that the temptation to attempt that severe "shot test" MUST be balanced by the realization that to NOT take that test will very likely ALSO result in the loss of that "medium of exchange" in golf (the stroke) too--although perhaps not as many or perhaps not at all. Of course, and again, that's all balanced by the fact that the more conservative alternative does still hold the possiblitilty of making up that medium of exchange along the way before that mini competition (the hole) is done.

All this fascinating contemplation going on in the mind of any golfer at the same time makes it all so interesting.

What will happen if I try A (high risk), B (some aggressive/conservative compromise) or C (conservative play)?

What will happen to my choices in relation to all the same things going through my opponents minds as we play along in tandem never vying for the same ball?

No wonder golf is so interesting and thoughtful! A man like Behr seemed to want to somehow make it more interesting and enjoyable by increasing the thoughtful options and possibilities and apparently making it more ongoing instead of coming to an instant halt in the penal gutter just off some narrow dilineated center corridor of success.

And so he was more an advocate of a more classical strategic architectural set up in architecture that probably offered and allowed more alternative ways of reaching the same destination (green) in the same result (strokes).

And by increasing those things it became more apparent to any golfer that the strategies were more a creation of the golfer and less that of the architect.

Do you see, in a real way, how that increases the ability of an architect to hide his hand--of course always aided by the degree to which an architect can make features that don't look as if he did make them?

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the response TEPaul  A few quick thoughts before I am off

I think we are coming at this from opposite ends of something but I am not sure what . . . Maybe something worthwhile lies in the middle. . .

With regard to your emphasis on the reward on the "shot testing" course I just dont see, it if you mean long term, entire hole reward.  In fact while in bed after the last post and still not sleeping I pretty much decided that on a true "shot testing" course risk/reward is a fallacy for almost all shots and really the only choice is on what shot to take the risk and the only "reward" is the absence of punishment which I really dont consider to be much of a reward . . .



I should really drink much much more . . .

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- I'm sorry I can't get behind PV because I don't know it but I do know the ninth at Cypress. There, the player has all those thoughts you describe in this last post of yours. Where? how? should I? can I? will I? and as you state this is the pinnacle of what golf's allure should always be. Thought provoking both intellectually and emotionally.

Having been injured that day at CP I appreciated more than most the genius of the design. Since I wasn't able to conceive of a shot over 215 yds. I played the course (from tips) as conservatively as I have ever played a round of golf. Without the challenge of the perpendicular hazards and the choices presented by the diagonal hazards what thinking is involved? Probably only emotional thinking because otherwise my shot has already been dictated to me, and either execute or don't. If I don't, I have the next shot to execute. Overcoming adversity is also a major aspect of the essence (or my enjoyment). Without the adversity, the sport would be less thrilling and tat amount to bowling without the retriever and only one pin.

Is it IQ versus EQ and the best of the best test both constantly and forever?