Is "target" golf the answer

[Patrick_Mucci]

to controlling distance off the tee ?

Should the architect create additional defenses in the "Bomb and Gouge" DZ to rein in long drives ?

ie, doglegs where going through the fairway creates problems and trying to cut the dogleg doesn't justify the risk ?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Pat,

It looks like the 18th at TPC Scottsdale will be redone to give this finishing hole some bite:

"Technology has taken the teeth out of the finishing hole as tour pros are able to blast drives over the end of a lake running down the left side. Plans call for dense desert to be placed in that area, which would prompt golfers to take a different target line. Also, the tee would be moved back and bunkers along the right side would be extended and grassy mounds would be added, giving them a “church pews” look like the famed bunkers at Oakmont Country Club near Pittsburgh."

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/golf/phoenixopen/articles/20140203phoenix-open-renovation-plans-follow-huge-success.html?nclick_check=1

[David_Tepper]

Pat -

I am surprised you did not mention a return to the use of cross-bunkers, perhaps in the 300-350 yard area off the tee. Could they be part of the answer?

DT   

[jeffwarne]

to controlling distance off the tee ?

Should the architect create additional defenses in the "Bomb and Gouge" DZ to rein in long drives ?

ie, doglegs where going through the fairway creates problems and trying to cut the dogleg doesn't justify the risk ?

No
because others have to play those same holes-the world does not need anymore target golf

tournament ball or rollback
or let the pros do what they will and DON'T bastardize courses for everyone else

[Steve Salmen]

Pat,

Please clarify. 

Is not target golf when the ball basically stops once it hits the ground? Usually the putting green?

It seems to me that this would make the game easier because there is no guess work as to what the ball is going to do once it lands.  Now, if you have dog leg holes that play firm and fast, that would definitely make good players think about what they're going to do.

I can think of some major championships where the scores were high when the course played soft (2002 US Open, 2007 Masters) but it seems high scores are usually on firm and fast courses like 2004, 2007 US Open.

[Sean_A]

Steve

I think of target golf as when the length of the shot is somehow restricted.  All approach shots to greens are target golf even if one can bounce the ball on.  So the ground game and target golf can in my mind happily co-exist.  Maybe I am wrong.  For driving, I usually don't like target golf especially for doglegs with run-out or even worse, when there are tres are in the inside of the leg blocking a shot toward the target.  But I accept that its a good idea to have some holes like this.  I prefer the use of bunkering to this job rather than trees, water or harsh rough.   

Ciao 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Please clarify. 

Is not target golf when the ball basically stops once it hits the ground?

NO
Usually the putting green?

It seems to me that this would make the game easier because there is no guess work as to what the ball is going to do once it lands.  Now, if you have dog leg holes that play firm and fast, that would definitely make good players think about what they're going to do.

I can think of some major championships where the scores were high when the course played soft (2002 US Open, 2007 Masters) but it seems high scores are usually on firm and fast courses like 2004, 2007 US Open.

[Patrick_Mucci]

to controlling distance off the tee ?

Should the architect create additional defenses in the "Bomb and Gouge" DZ to rein in long drives ?

ie, doglegs where going through the fairway creates problems and trying to cut the dogleg doesn't justify the risk ?

No
because others have to play those same holes-the world does not need anymore target golf

The others aren't hitting it in the same DZ

tournament ball or rollback

I'm less and less optimistic about either a tournament ball or a rollback, thus, the architect has to deal with the reality of increased distance.

or let the pros do what they will and DON'T bastardize courses for everyone else

But, it's not just the Pros.
High school kids are hitting it 300+

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat -

I am surprised you did not mention a return to the use of cross-bunkers, perhaps in the 300-350 yard area off the tee. Could they be part of the answer?

David,

I didn't get into specifics, but, I've long been a fan of cross bunkering and definitely see them as a critical element in crafting architectural defensive features  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

Target golf doesn't have to restrict itself to doglegs, that was just one example.

Narrowed DZ's flanked by serious bunkers are certainly a consideration.

The leftside fairway bunker on # 5 at ANGC comes to mind in terms of a bunker that's highly visible, and deep, to the degree that the golfer can't see the target green.

[Bill_McBride]

Sean,

Target golf doesn't have to restrict itself to doglegs, that was just one example.

Narrowed DZ's flanked by serious bunkers are certainly a consideration.

The leftside fairway bunker on # 5 at ANGC comes to mind in terms of a bunker that's highly visible, and deep, to the degree that the golfer can't see the target green.

Bottle holes are a good example of that scheme. 

Distance restriction can be accomplished on a case by case basis.  Remember the band of thick rough at about 280 off the tee at Valderamma #17 in a Ryder Cup?   Captain Seve called for that distance restriction to keep the longer Americans from turning the hole into a par 4.  The strategy worked. 

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Target golf doesn't have to restrict itself to doglegs, that was just one example.

Narrowed DZ's flanked by serious bunkers are certainly a consideration.

The leftside fairway bunker on # 5 at ANGC comes to mind in terms of a bunker that's highly visible, and deep, to the degree that the golfer can't see the target green.

I agree, but I wouldn't consider wasp waste DZs target golf, just straight forward penal golf.  If an option exists (even if its 15 yards of width) to bang one past trouble, thats not true target golf. 

The more I think on it, the more I don't like the term "target golf".

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I don't like the term, either.

It was espoused just as I was getting into the business as an environmental solution -- target golf courses like the TPC at Sawgrass would reduce water and pesticide use.  But restricting the size of targets also reduces playability, and most golfers who are not professionals need wider playable areas, not narrower ones.

Still, playable area doesn't always have to be fairway.  Pinehurst #2 is now a great example of natural, playable roughs that don't require inputs, thus reducing costs without overly penalizing golfers.

There is also nothing wrong with having some holes that are narrower in order to reward accuracy over distance, instead of just trying to restrict distance at a certain point.  Forced lay-ups don't make any sense to me; they are always better if there is some other option, no matter how stupid it is.  Sometimes the stupider it is, the more guys go for it!

Meanwhile, the environmental solution is not to restrict playable areas.  It's to reduce inputs on playable areas.  Target golf pushes us in the wrong direction, by encouraging golfers to think there is a "fairway" that ought to be kept in pristine condition.  Remember, there is no "fairway" in the Rules of Golf ... the animals grazed at random, and the golfers were not so coddled in their expectations of design and maintenance.

[jeffwarne]

I don't like the term, either.



Meanwhile, the environmental solution is not to restrict playable areas.  It's to reduce inputs on playable areas.  Target golf pushes us in the wrong direction, by encouraging golfers to think there is a "fairway" that ought to be kept in pristine condition.  Remember, there is no "fairway" in the Rules of Golf ... the animals grazed at random, and the golfers were not so coddled in their expectations of design and maintenance.

Palmetto preirrigation was a prime example of this.
With the introduction of irrigation, the bermuda rough became formalized , the sandy areas went away and the course lost visual texture.
they have mad an attempt to restore some of this texture in the Hanse "restoration", but bunkers (waste areas ) surrounding tees and used as cart paths evoke feelings of Myrtle Beach, not golden age golf

[Ally Mcintosh]

As it relates to doglegs, I always reference target golf as the type that seems to be designed around the centreline turning point on a plan. Obvious and very defined.

The opposite (let's say classic) is a dogleg that has no obvious turning point. Sweeping.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

I think the "bottle hole" configuration provides a great defense.

Of the limited number of "bottles" I've encountered, the 8th at NGLA is the most outstanding

Bottle holes are a good example of that scheme. 

Distance restriction can be accomplished on a case by case basis.  Remember the band of thick rough at about 280 off the tee at Valderamma #17 in a Ryder Cup?   Captain Seve called for that distance restriction to keep the longer Americans from turning the hole into a par 4.  The strategy worked. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Just a random thought, on unintended consequences. You can't log into this website without bumping into a thread, usually several, that praises the tree-cutting/tree-clearing fad that's sweeping the country, the notion being that all the best and most enlightened clubs and club memberships have finally managed to convince the dullards and the card and pencil set and the architectural dinosaurs among them that there is no evil worse than trees on a golf course, clogging up the vistas and robbing courses of the architectural greatness they once had (even if, as it sometimes seems, the original architects either left trees in place or had them planted and expected them to grow over time to add nuance and challenge to the design.) Now, that all may be true, the theory/fad may in fact often be the best thing, and yet it seems to me that an "S curve" without trees to frame/border it becomes instead, well, nothing more than an open rectangular field; and cross hazards and doglegs lose much of their meaning if pro and hacker alike can set up on the tee in whatever direction he wants and bomb away, comfortable in the fact that there'll be nary a tree to block or impede the ball's line of flight; and environmentally, all the space where trees once stood (that once needed no water or fertilizer), what do we think will fill that space now, not in an ideal Pinehurst #2 world, but in most places -- do we think it might be rough, or fairway maybe? And do we think most clubs will let the rough shrivel away to nothing and the fairway turn brown  by not adding water and fertilizer? I don't know -- but sometimes it seems to me that we are moving today as quickly (and yes, thoughtlessly) as we claim the idiot club chairs of the past did when they quickly and thoughtlessly added tress to their courses, in part to combat the new golfing technologies that had everyone hitting the ball further.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

I think you're confusing existing courses with new designs.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

I would like nothing more than to see many, manymore doglegs of the type you describe because if done well they are miles more interesting than tree lined doglegs.  That said, where are all these scorched earth courses you mention?  I know of only one parkland course which has essentially eliminated trees from its design, Oakmont.  That seems to have worked out pretty well. 

Valley Links' 16th is what I think of as a proper dogleg and find it incredible that golfrs would prefer a tree lined version.  The temptation to go left is almost impossible to avoid simply because we have our ultimate target in view - its th egreatest sort of temptation.  As an aside, this type of excellent design is a huge reason why gps should not be allowed in run of the mill amateur golf. 


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Isn't the 10th at Riviera a good example where design makes many (not all) of the pros decide to lay up? As with Sean's dog leg example I think this sort of 'temptation verses common sense' choice type of design is the most elegant sort of solution. The forced placing involved in true target golf is fine now and again at the green end but for me always a poor solution off the tee.

Jon

[jeffwarne]

Just a random thought, on unintended consequences. You can't log into this website without bumping into a thread, usually several, that praises the tree-cutting/tree-clearing fad that's sweeping the country, the notion being that all the best and most enlightened clubs and club memberships have finally managed to convince the dullards and the card and pencil set and the architectural dinosaurs among them that there is no evil worse than trees on a golf course, clogging up the vistas and robbing courses of the architectural greatness they once had (even if, as it sometimes seems, the original architects either left trees in place or had them planted and expected them to grow over time to add nuance and challenge to the design.) Now, that all may be true, the theory/fad may in fact often be the best thing, and yet it seems to me that an "S curve" without trees to frame/border it becomes instead, well, nothing more than an open rectangular field; and cross hazards and doglegs lose much of their meaning if pro and hacker alike can set up on the tee in whatever direction he wants and bomb away, comfortable in the fact that there'll be nary a tree to block or impede the ball's line of flight; and environmentally, all the space where trees once stood (that once needed no water or fertilizer), what do we think will fill that space now, not in an ideal Pinehurst #2 world, but in most places -- do we think it might be rough, or fairway maybe? And do we think most clubs will let the rough shrivel away to nothing and the fairway turn brown  by not adding water and fertilizer? I don't know -- but sometimes it seems to me that we are moving today as quickly (and yes, thoughtlessly) as we claim the idiot club chairs of the past did when they quickly and thoughtlessly added tress to their courses, in part to combat the new golfing technologies that had everyone hitting the ball further.

Peter

+1

[jeffwarne]

Sean,
That picture of the Valley Links #16 is a wonderful example of a dogleg in a sandy links enviroment.

Clear cutting a parkland course leaves the question of what fills the space?
Leave nature alone in most enviroments and it will return to nature.
"native" grasses, except in the linksiest of soils need maintenance, even with the irrigation off -it rains,
Suddenly players are looking for balls in hay/bushes, where formerly trees were and the turf was thin underneath.

and of course too many trees create their own air flow and shade issues.

Not saying trees don't need management-they do---but the area created after the tree clearing needs MORE management or it truly becomes target golf -ick

Look no further than the complaints at GCA Buda events when wet weather has created unmanageable gnarly rough, and that's in a links enviroment
It's only 100 times worse in fertile farmland or heavy soils.

Peter's point is tree planting was a fad which created its own thoughtless "follow me" momentum.
Let's be careful not to do the same in reverse on courses where the "native" enviroment is woodland, not tick and weed infested 2 foot high fescue grass

[Tim Gavrich]

It seems that the problem with restricting the distance the longest players hit it off the tee via "target golf" is that they'll now be reduced to hitting irons and fairway woods out to the same point as where the shorter hitters will be still hitting drivers. Dustin Johnson would be delighted to hit his 285-yard 3 wood off the tee all day if most of the rest of the field is going to be hitting 285-yard drivers.

[Joe Hancock]

Interesting that TD indicated the targets in terms of wide vs. narrow, rather than deep vs. shallow.

Average golfers need to pick a line on every shot, but making them do calculations to know how far, but not too far just slows things down....that's what I think of when I hear the term "target golf".

Joe

[ChipRoyce]

to controlling distance off the tee ?

Should the architect create additional defenses in the "Bomb and Gouge" DZ to rein in long drives ?

ie, doglegs where going through the fairway creates problems and trying to cut the dogleg doesn't justify the risk ?

If that's the case, then just plant lots and lots of trees, esp in fairways. That will limit the golfer's options.
(Disclaimer: I would pack a chainsaw in my bag and cut down 95% of all trees on golf courses)