How does a 15 HCP play the 15th at Augusta?

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff, I actually laughed out loud a little there.

This thread has now hit eight pages and discussed at least eight different general strategies for how the hole can be played by an average player. Someone else will have to explain to me how that equates to a hole that isn't "strategic," regardless of whose definition you use. I was always partial to Kyle Harris' definition personally.

And just about every one of those "strategies" involved a compulsory carry over water.  Except for the guy who was going to putt it over the bridge.

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, I actually laughed out loud a little there.

This thread has now hit eight pages and discussed at least eight different general strategies for how the hole can be played by an average player. Someone else will have to explain to me how that equates to a hole that isn't "strategic," regardless of whose definition you use. I was always partial to Kyle Harris' definition personally.

And just about every one of those "strategies" involved a compulsory carry over water.  Except for the guy who was going to putt it over the bridge.

so do we eliminate all heathland courses from strategic consideration?

15 at ANGC has a pond 30 yards across which doesn't go any farther right or left than the green itself, so that really hell bent to be cagey 15 hdcp can putt, chip. or whatever out to the right of the green and bunker without actually carrying the water-the deepest grass he may find is 1 inch long, so what's to stop him from playing right of the green and then on if he truly refuses to have a go at the mythically impossible 80 yard shot?

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff,

Just out of curiosity, on a scale of 1-10 with ten being hardest, what is your rating for the 15 HCP from 80 yards in the middle of the fairway?

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, there can be no risk/reward without risk. To wish for as much is to confuse "strategy" with being facile. Strategic holes simply require players to make decisions about how to play them such that their skills will yield the lowest possible score. I still don't understand how you can't see that Augusta 15 does exactly that. If you think all holes with forced carries of even a modest distance are too difficult, fine. But don't try to play semantics to suggest the hole lacks strategic options.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:

You can interpret those definitions any way you want.  My read is that if in the "normal" play of a golf hole you have to clear a hazard, it is a penal golf hole.  That would include heathland courses with long compulsory carries off of the tee.

But note, my interpretation of normal play assumes at least a modicum of ability.

Sven

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim, there can be no risk/reward without risk. To wish for as much is to confuse "strategy" with being facile. Strategic holes simply require players to make decisions about how to play them such that their skills will yield the lowest possible score. I still don't understand how you can't see that Augusta 15 does exactly that. If you think all holes with forced carries of even a modest distance are too difficult, fine. But don't try to play semantics to suggest the hole lacks strategic options.

Jason,

I probably can't add to what Sven said. For me a "strategic" hole (on an otherwise "penal" golf course) would be something like #13 at Pine Valley. There is a pretty big reward for playing directly at the pin and penalty for pulling the shot left though not necessarily the loss of a stroke (maybe!).

But, you can always safely bail out right avoiding disaster, but, of course, inviting the three putt.

Getting back to Augusta, 15 has the combination of a forced carry and a very difficult lie. I think by definition that tilts it towards penal.

By the way, I haven't said how I would actually play the hole. I barely play golf these days and would need to play everyday for a few weeks to even play at a 15, but here is what I would try playing from members tees:

Tee shot: should be about 220-230. Would try to stay center right.

Second shot: probably a hybrid aiming for left side of fairway, trying to get as close as possible to pond

Third shot: (hopefully from left) aim for left edge of bunker probably with nine iron rather than wedge hoping I neither chunk or thin it, but thinking I have given myself the most margin for error. Kind of weird trying to zig zag but I think this would give me best chance.

I know for certain I don't want to play a wedge from 80 yards. No way.

[DMoriarty]

Jason and Jeff,

It seems that there are at least a couple of different issues here that are being conflated. One is the issue of whether the hole is difficult (or too difficult) for a 15 handicapper. Another is whether the approach presents realistic strategic options for the 15 handicapper.   You guys seem to be twisting the latter to make your case regarding the former. 

I haven't played it, and I can't really say whether the hole is too hard for a 15 handicapper, but that is a different issue of whether the approach presents realistic strategic options for the high handicapper.   Forced carries generally do not present strategic options because they are "forced."  There is no realistic way to play away from them or around them at the potential cost of a higher score.  Jeff can come up with stretched scenarios about putting around or whatever, but those don't seem to be realistic options contemplated by the design, do they?

And Jason, your definition of "strategic holes" seems meaningless to me.  All golf holes "require players to make decisions about how to play them such that their skills will yield the lowest possible score."   If all holes are strategic, then the term means nothing.  

[Tim_Weiman]

David,

You summed it up much better than I did.

[Sean_A]

Here's the C&W definitions (others like Doak and Shack have their own wordings):

Penal - design generally involves compulsory carries over hazards with no alternative course.

Strategic - design provides alternative routes so that the player is not required to carry the hazard.  It also provides a premium for those who dare the hazard and succeed.

Heroic - design is a blend of strategic and penal.  Hazards are placed on the diagonal so that the more a player carries the greater the reward.  This is sometimes referred to as the "bite off" theory."

Not terribly difficult to understand except options are important as well.  As in, bunkers left and right (bowling alley golf) leaving no options but dead straight is penal as well.

Forced carries and bowling alley golf are on the penal end of the spectrum.  Centreline/diagonal bunkers are on the strategic end of the spectrum. The big problem here is most folks associate strategic with good architecture and penal with bad architecture.  I dare say on the outside world the opposite is the case.  Either way, its the stuff of nonsense.  All types of design and hazards are good and necessary.  The issue is balance between the two extremes matching the intended audience.  Or even on a more basic level, understanding that not all courses can or should be championship difficulty.  So if we want my granny to get around the course, a forced carry over water isn't terribly clever.  On the other hand, my granny isn't going to play much golf and the water issue can often be mitigated with a forward tee.  I think this idea can work very well in limited use.  These days, archies think they can have five sets of tees to mitigate just about everything and still claim the course is interesting and challenging for all.  Its a good idea gone haywire and in the main generated by the idea of stupidly providing a championship length and test for practically all courses built.  Often times these courses don't work well for my granny or as a championship test.   

I also think folks confuse the difficulty of the hazard with strategic or penal.  That is an entirely separate matter.  Its the placement of the hazard, not the degree of difficulty it poses which matters in this conversation.   

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean,

Actually I think Strategic is harder to do well than Heroic or Penal. One consequence is the latter two get palmed off on the public or frequently and as "quality architecture," when the real culprit is a poverty of imagination, an inability to put in the time necessary to come up w a quality Strategic solution, or a combination of the two. Also, good Strategic may require one width than post WW2 housing-constrained designs allow for. When you are lucky to play a solid post-war Strategic the dominant emotions are joy and "we wuz robbed!"

[MClutterbuck]

MClutterbuck:

Actually, IMO, you can't really see this hole on television. So, someone who just watched the Masters would probably not even think of the question.

Spending lots of time around the 80-100 mark is what motivated me.

Same thing, you can not compare tournament week to any other week for members.

It is not tough to stop a wedge on 15 unless you get silly on a short left pin.

Remind me, what's your handicap again ?

From 30-50-80-100 yards, from a downhill lie to that narrow green, is a tough shot.

Especially with water and a steep bank fronting the green.

12. And I parred and birdied 15 the first 2 times around. I double bogeyed the 3rd time because I aimed my wedge directly at the left pin position and spun it back into the pond. If you aim to the right  on a regular week, the ball does stop. The putting is the problem for me. I would rather face that chip on 15 to be on the green in regulation than a mid to long iron to holes 9 or 18. All day. 15 is not among the 6 toughest holes at ANGC for an amateur. People read too much into the hole due to Masters weekend when pros try to BIRDIE the hole.

[Jason Thurman]

Guys, all that we're really doing now is talking semantics. If you really believe that the terms penal, strategic, and heroic are mutually exclusive of one another, and that any hole with even a modest forced carry must fall into the penal category, then that's fine. The plethora of options available to the average player on 15 at Augusta and detailed throughout this thread are more than adequate to state that the hole also has strategic options. Yes, he must eventually cross a pond that my Granny can carry. He also must eventually hole a putt. He has multiple valid tactics available though. I guess some people think the ability to bail out long and right over the green isn't an adequate safety net on a 20 yard pitch for the average player. Those people and I just disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't really care about how this or that GCA'er categorizes the hole. All that matters is how it plays, and it's very obvious that it presents plenty of tactical options to accommodate the average player and therefore fulfill Dr. Mackenzie's vision. This is further corroborated by a handful of firsthand accounts from people on this site who have actually played the hole. That's all I have to say on the subject.

[BCowan]

''Getting back to Augusta, 15 has the combination of a forced carry and a very difficult lie. I think by definition that tilts it towards penal.''

difficult lies (down hill) has nothing to do with Penal design.

A hole can be Strategic with a penal hazard, which i don't think the hazard is penal on #15.  #15 is a Strategic hole with elements of Heroic in it.  It gets eagled by good players.  Would growing out the rye short of the green help with everyday play?  I would think so.  It comes down to minor tweaks for the average player without (Regrading the fairway to make it like every other boring modern course) like others have suggested.  Nobody said the shot was easy, we just cringe when people talk about dumbing down courses.

An example of a Strategic hole with a penal hazard would be #17 at TOC.  

Sven's definitions are very vague and doesn't tell the whole story IMHO.  #15 at Augusta is a par 5, if it was a par 4 I would call it a Penal hole for any type of player.   A penal hole has a narrow fairway, bunkers on both sides of the fairway equal distance from the tee.  Penal also gives you no options, and we are talking 150 yards+ out.

Back to #16 at Cypress Point, I believe the bailout to the left would require something like a 150 yard carry?  Don't know just going by some photos.  But that hole isn't Penal by the same people who claim 80 yards at #15 is...

[Josh Tarble]

Honestly, if you don't think you can hit an 80 yard shot off of a slight downhill lie to a giant green at least most of the time, you should probably take up tennis.

[Jason Thurman]

Honestly, if you don't think you can hit an 80 yard shot off of a slight downhill lie to a giant green at least most of the time, you should probably take up tennis.

[Tim_Weiman]

''Getting back to Augusta, 15 has the combination of a forced carry and a very difficult lie. I think by definition that tilts it towards penal.''

difficult lies (down hill) has nothing to do with Penal design.

A hole can be Strategic with a penal hazard, which i don't think the hazard is penal on #15.  #15 is a Strategic hole with elements of Heroic in it.  It gets eagled by good players.  Would growing out the rye short of the green help with everyday play?  I would think so.  It comes down to minor tweaks for the average player without (Regrading the fairway to make it like every other boring modern course) like others have suggested.  Nobody said the shot was easy, we just cringe when people talk about dumbing down courses.

An example of a Strategic hole with a penal hazard would be #17 at TOC.  

Sven's definitions are very vague and doesn't tell the whole story IMHO.  #15 at Augusta is a par 5, if it was a par 4 I would call it a Penal hole for any type of player.   A penal hole has a narrow fairway, bunkers on both sides of the fairway equal distance from the tee.  Penal also gives you no options, and we are talking 150 yards+ out.

Back to #16 at Cypress Point, I believe the bailout to the left would require something like a 150 yard carry?  Don't know just going by some photos.  But that hole isn't Penal by the same people who claim 80 yards at #15 is...

BCowan:

Those aren't Sven's definitions. They come from Cornish and Whitten in the landmark golf architecture book.

As Dave M pointed out, by definition if the approach requires a forced carry it is penal. Probably nothing more should be said, but some here have tried to suggest the forced carry isn't penal due to the length of the shot. I responded pointing out the issue of slope. However, neither length or slope actually determine whether the hole is penal. The forced carry is the determining factor.

I see Jason has suggested it is just semantics.

I don't think so.

If we compare #15 at Augusta to the famous #16 at Firestone you can see a much more clear example of where a hazard was created that expert players sometime cross in two shots, but anyone has the option of just playing around it.

[Sean_A]

Its difficult and/or cumbersome to carry on a conversation when people refuse to accept the basics of subject language.  If folks can't accept that a forced carry is the essence of penal design I have no time for this conversation    Its too basic to be arguing about.    

Mark

I agree with you.  Strategic design can often be perceived as too easy and certainly not suitable for championship golf.  Often the debate is how wide is too wide for strategic golf to have any meaning.  I don't often come across this issue, but I did wonder once or twice at Bull Bay in S Carolina.  I think part of the problem is two fold.  1st, many people view architecture thru the lens of TV golf - the pros.  Viewers can see that pros tear up a course which is wide and without wind.  So in truth, its the weather which creates the challenge rather than the architecture.  2nd, the idea of defending par leaves the powers that be little choice other than to make courses more penal than their design intent.  TOC and Augusta are classic examples of this approach.  The great fun TOC is has been systematically reduced by the notion of protecting par - thats been going on for over 100 years and continues.  While folks have been outraged by the recent work done to TOC, the real outrage is the elimination of the Principal's Nose as a centreline hazard.  That is perhaps the single most important feature underpinning the history of strategic design and it was quietly and unceremoniously rubbed out.  I was in shock when I saw where the left rough was a few years ago  

The bottom line is TOC is not a tough championship test, nor is Augusta unless the weather is up.  This fact is ironically the undoing of strategic design as a widely accepted design philosphy.  Its even more ironic that a 15 capper can hold this opinion  

Ciao

 

[BCowan]

''Those aren't Sven's definitions. They come from Cornish and Whitten in the landmark golf architecture book.

As Dave M pointed out, by definition if the approach requires a forced carry it is penal. Probably nothing more should be said, but some here have tried to suggest the forced carry isn't penal due to the length of the shot. I responded pointing out the issue of slope. However, neither length or slope actually determine whether the hole is penal. The forced carry is the determining factor.''



Tim,

   You know what i meant.  

''Difficult hazards, which the golfer may label penal, are the essence of interesting golf, and nowhere more so than in the strategic school, where there ought to be a distinct penalty for the golfer who has failed to heed the hazard after being given plenty of room to do so.'' Anatomy of a golf Course pages 69/71.  -  I think 50-80 yard pitch is plenty of room.

    You claimed the hole is Penal and I totally disagree with you.  A strategic hole can have penal hazards.  Are you going to tell me the greenside bunker at TOC #17 isn't penal?  That the tee shot isn't strategic?  The definitions provided by C&W aren't telling the whole story IMHO.  

   If #15 at Augusta was a par 4, I would agree that the hole was Penal.  With it being a short par 5, I presume it to be Strategic with Heroic aspects.  Just because the hole may or may not be set up too tough for everyday play (which is the overlooked topic) doesn't mean that it is a Penal hole!  You can claim it to be a penal hazard and I could see your point of view, but it isn't a Penal hole IMHO.

[BCowan]

Tim,

   One could say more than half the holes at Firestone are Penal, the average fairway is 22 yards wide.

[jeffwarne]

'
If we compare #15 at Augusta to the famous #16 at Firestone you can see a much more clear example of where a hazard was created that expert players sometime cross in two shots, but anyone has the option of just playing around it.

What major championship golf doesn't need is another hole where one lays up to 100 yards and a flat lie
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
especially as the #2 handicap hole for member play
Isn't the difficulty of the potential third shot layup  part of what might influence a better player to have a go on the second?

Penal ? strategic who cares?
Agreed it's penal for most as they wouldn't give a second thought about going right over the water from 80 yards
but for others who might play around it -it could be strategic

I guess I just don't understand why this hole would be any different than #12 or #16, or any other hole that involves  a carry of more than 30 yards

[Jason Thurman]

Sean, Tim, is it your belief that if a hole has a feature that Cornish and Whitten would label as "penal," then the hole is also by definition penal? And if so, do you also believe that a hole with such a penal feature is in direct opposition of a strategic hole tactically?

If so, how do you reconcile that the plethora of strategic options available from 250 yards and in on Augusta's 15th are all made valid by the existence of a single feature that fits the C&W definition of "penal"?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean, your point regarding TOC 16 is well taken.

Jason, all hazards are penal. Whether a hole is of the Penal School is a matter of the location of the hazard(s), as Sean has noted previously.

[Tim_Weiman]

'
If we compare #15 at Augusta to the famous #16 at Firestone you can see a much more clear example of where a hazard was created that expert players sometime cross in two shots, but anyone has the option of just playing around it.

What major championship golf doesn't need is another hole where one lays up to 100 yards and a flat lie
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
especially as the #2 handicap hole for member play
Isn't the difficulty of the potential third shot layup  part of what might influence a better player to have a go on the second?

Penal ? strategic who cares?
Agreed it's penal for most as they wouldn't give a second thought about going right over the water from 80 yards
but for others who might play around it -it could be strategic

I guess I just don't understand why this hole would be any different than #12 or #16, or any other hole that involves  a carry of more than 30 yards

Jeff,

I thought I made clear the discussion was not about championship golf.

A penal hole like #14  at Pine Valley doesn't inspire this conversation because by all accounts Crump set out to build a penal golf course for very good golfers.

By contrast, Mackenzie intended to build a strategic course that would appeal to all levels of players.

As Sven pointed out, the current #15 is not the original. The revision was, to the best of my understanding, a tilt in favor of challenging the expert level player. The intent of the revision has worked very well, I assume we would all agree.

However, this thread is about whether the revision also remained faithful to the original design concept. I don't think it did. Yes, there are different ways for a 15 HCP to play the hole, but there really is no none goofy way around the forced carry.

Personally, I don't really like #16 at Firestone, but it does serve to illustrate the difference between penal and strategic.

[Mike Hendren]

Perhaps the expansion of the creek into a pond and the shaving of the far bank turned the hole from strategic to penal.

Bogey

[Mark Bourgeois]

Perhaps the expansion of the creek into a pond and the shaving of the far bank turned the hole from strategic to penal.

Bogey

Yes! PLUS the addition of the bunker right of the green as well as the removal of mounds where the bunker went.