[Mike Hendren]

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.

Slight?  Giant?  I smell a fabulous opportunity to win a prop bet:   What percentage of GCA'ers could pull this off on the first try?  

What's the over/under?  I say 25%.

You?

[Sean_A]

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"?

Jason

I wouldn't exclusively say that a hole with one penal shot is a penal hole, but I think in practice it tends to be the case.  

I am not sure how else to say this.  The 15th has a forced carry and because of this single must face hazard I would say the hole is penal.  All the options people speak of are either shots leading up to the forced carry, which must eventually be taken on, or playing off the map over bridges or around the next county  

There is no need to change definitions or assign value judgements to the terms.  Penal and strategic are only important as terms which make it easier to describe and converse about golf holes.  But when people confuse the terms with the degree of hazard difficulty or how short the carry is etc, then all hell breaks loose with language.  I think its best to think of penal and strategic as a continuum and to think of how my granny, the rabbit, will get around the course. When seen in the light of the rabbit, the terms become quite obvious as to their meaning.

Ciao

[Tim_Weiman]

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"?

Jason,

Let me try to make one other point. I think there is a difference between "strategy" and "strategic design".

Strategy refers to the choices the player makes. Strategic design refers to the choices the architect makes.

On #15 at Augusta one might opt to go for the green in two or lay up and go for it in three shots. This decision was also faced by golfers with the original design.

Now, at some point there was a decision to revise the original design. Those making the design decision could have built something like #16 at Firestone (by creating a pond but leaving a clear path around it). Instead, they elected to create a forced carry.

I believe that decision changed the hole from "strategic" to "penal".

[Jason Thurman]

When definitions fall apart under any scrutiny at all, the problem lies with the definitions themselves and not with the people cross-examining them. There's been a long-upheld false dichotomy on this site between the words "strategic" and "penal." With even a small amount of critical analysis, it becomes clear that they're not mutually exclusive (at least as defined by Cornish and Whitten and when that definition is applied as it has been on this thread) and often part and parcel of the totality of how a hole functions.

Part of the problem with the C&W definition is that it doesn't offer a way to describe a feature with any more depth than we have without the word. If "penal" is synonymous with "forced carry" or "compulsory," then it's really just a redundant word. Language works best when depth is gained by additions to the lexicon, and the type of scholarship in which we're allegedly engaged on this site works best if we have terminology that allows us to explore concepts more deeply as opposed to jargon that dumbs our discussions down with redundancy.

This is why I've always preferred Kyle Harris' definition of a strategic feature. To paraphrase, he suggested that strategic features are those which are located in direct proximity to or in what would otherwise be the ideal location for a shot, while penal features are those located in a position that, absent the feature, would still be the incorrect spot to be. That lends far more depth and requires far more knowledge and analysis than simply identifying a feature that is compulsory. It also is far more reflective of the actual definition of strategy as it pertains to how golfers approach a hole.

My understanding of hole 15 from reading this thread is that "Position A" for the player who can't reach the green in two is in direct proximity to the water on the left side of the fairway, creating an angle that effectively makes the green deeper and gives plenty of room to miss long. Furthermore, if the pond were filled in and maintained as fairway, position A would probably be somewhere on top of the fill where the lie would inevitably level and the pitch would be into the slope of the green. By that definition, a hazard placed in the area of the pond becomes a strategic one, which it clearly is based on the options it presents from inside 250 yards (go for the green, lay up to wedge yardage on a downslope, or challenge the water on the left side to find a flat spot to pitch from, and then on the subsequent shot choose whether or not to go at the flag, the fat part of the green, or bail out long and right).

I might reconsider the above if someone could do what I asked in my last post and explain:

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"?

I don't think anyone will be able to do that though. The bottom line is that the feature drives the strategy of every golfer who plays the hole. Do with that what you will. You can call it strategic, penal, heroic, or any other word you wish to use. A rose by any other name would still smell sweet to the guy who handles it wisely and prick with thorns the guy who plays stupidly.

[Sven Nilsen]

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"?

Here's where you are missing the boat.  The C&W definition doesn't apply to "features", it applies to the "design."

If you don't grasp that distinction, its impossible to have this conversation.

[DMoriarty]

Jason,  

You seem to be just making up definitions to suit your current rhetorical needs.

No one said there is always a mutually exclusive dichotomy.

[Sean_A]

Jason

Nevermind about Kyle - he didn't invent the language so he can't alter the meaning of the language    Despite appearances to the contrary, this isn't a debate.  Its a matter of right and wrong where the definitions are concerned.  Some people misunderstand the definitions and are therefore incorrect and some people understand the definitions and are therefore correct. That said, its not rocket science    

I have said along there is a continuum, so the idea of a pure dichotomy between penal and strategic, while it exists, needn't be the case at all. 

By their placement, hazards inherently provide options in how to deal with them.  If there is only one option, to carry the hazard or play strictly between the hazards, they are of a penal nature.  Sure, the degree of difficulty can be mitigated by using a extra stroke or 50 to inch up to the hazard area before taking them on, but one must eventually take them on.  Hazards which allow more options are more strategic on the continuum.  For instance, a centreline hazard has three options compared to a cross hazard which has one option.  A diagonal hazard effectively has two options, with the bonus of bite off as much as you choose, should one choose to attempt to carry the hazard.  The ultimate in strategic hazards are those placed in such a manner where rabbits can avoid them completely and tigers need to sail close to the wind to earn par or perhaps even a birdie.

I am failing to grasp why some folks find these distinctions difficult to understand or why they choose take issue with long established definitions.  

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

I am failing to grasp why some folks find these distinctions difficult to understand or why they choose take issue with long established definitions.  

Ciao

Me too.  But I suspect it comes down to something you said a while back:  "The big problem here is most folks associate strategic with good architecture and penal with bad architecture."

People seem to have gotten themselves all tangled up because they don't want to admit that there are design aspects of the great ANGC that aren't all that strategic for a high handicapper.   ANGC is great.  Strategic is great.  Therefore everything about ANGC must be strategic for everyone.

[Tim_Weiman]

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"?

Here's where you are missing the boat.  The C&W definition doesn't apply to "features", it applies to the "design."

If you don't grasp that distinction, its impossible to have this conversation.

Sven,

That is the point I have tried to make by citing #16 at Firestone in the discussion of #15 at Augusta. Both are par 5s. Both can be set up to offer a decision on going for the green in two. Both have a pond fronting the green. However, one is designed with a forced carry while the other one offers a reasonable way around the pond.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tim:

The key word being reasonable.  

11 at ANGC is another good example to use in applying these concepts.  

I also agree with Sean on the continuum aspect, especially with regards to how Penal and Heroic work together.  Any cape style drive could be classified as either, but because there is a reasonable option to take on a shorter carry (leaving a longer shot into the green), we would call it Heroic design.  Contrast that with a hole where you have to carry the ball 200 yards plus over a hazard just to get to the fairway.  They both have a compulsory carries, but they are different types of golf holes.

A couple posters made the point earlier that if the pond was still a creek, it would not be a penal golf hole.  This raises an interesting question as to the nature of the hazard, and if it effects where you would place the design on the continuum.  Look at how the creek on 13 has been altered over the years, with varying degrees of playability from the creek bed at different times.  If its a hazard you can play a recovery shot from, does that make the design less Penal?  Does the angle of the creek there (and the pond on 12) make these hole more Heroic, as there are lines that require less of a carry?

I know I said earlier that if there is a compulsory carry, it meets the definition of Penal.  I'd like to amend that by saying you can have elements of it being Heroic as well, and its a bit of a sliding scale between the two depending on the exact nature of the features.

Sven

[Tim_Weiman]

I am failing to grasp why some folks find these distinctions difficult to understand or why they choose take issue with long established definitions.  

Ciao

Me too.  But I suspect it comes down to something you said a while back:  "The big problem here is most folks associate strategic with good architecture and penal with bad architecture."

People seem to have gotten themselves all tangled up because they don't want to admit that there are design aspects of the great ANGC that aren't all that strategic for a high handicapper.   ANGC is great.  Strategic is great.  Therefore everything about ANGC must be strategic for everyone.

David,

I agree. I am not sure discussion of #15 requires that we reinvent the definitions of design.

The discussion makes me wonder (half seriously) if the Masters is held at the wrong club. Perhaps Oakmont would have been better. There was no intent to be strategic. No intent to accommodate mid handicappers. As technology evolved, the course could just have been made ever more difficult and nobody would have cared to have a discussion like this thread.

But, Royal Melbourne is probably the argument against that. The original concept has been well preserved, at least that is what I gathered from my one visit and I think folks like Mike Clayton would agree.

[Jason Thurman]

Here's where you are missing the boat.  The C&W definition doesn't apply to "features", it applies to the "design."

If you don't grasp that distinction, its impossible to have this conversation.

You're grasping at straws. Please explain how feature placement is not a part of the discussion of design. Also, note that it's not me who has reduced the discussion of the hole's design to whether or not a single feature is strategic or penal. By looking at how the design of the hole functions, it's obvious that a rigorous definition of "any feature that requires a forced carry is penal and not strategic" as implied by Sean and Tim simply doesn't work. In evaluating the design of the hole in its entirety, it becomes obvious that the placement of this feature along with its terrain and general playing qualities creates multiple strategies.




David, you're confusing Geoffrey Cornish's formula for identifying strategic design with the definition of the word strategic. In fact, the definition of "strategic" from the Oxford English Dictionary reads:

Strategic - Relating to the identification of long-term or overall aims and interests and the means of achieving them

That definition trumps any effort that an architect made to redefine the term in a book he wrote. Let's apply it to golf and the 15th at Augusta:

The overall aim on any hole is to score as best as possible. It is the presence of different means of achieving that goal that presents strategic architecture. Cornish's formula for identifying strategic design is obviously too reductionist when applied to the 15th at Augusta. The pond and downslope combine to create myriad strategic options as defined by the English language, despite the fact that those features would be labeled "penal" and by definition NOT "strategic" in accordance with Cornish's formula. We don't disagree on the application of Cornish's formula for determining which category a design fits into. We simply disagree on its legitimacy.

If you disagree and believe that the 15th hole is in fact an example of penal design, please simply explain how you reconcile the obvious conflict in the fact that those myriad strategic options are created by a feature that C&W define as penal. You and Sean can cite Geoffrey Cornish all you want, but until you can reconcile his theory on strategic design and penal hazards with how it applies to 15 at Augusta National, I remain unimpressed. He was a very smart guy who attempted to define a formula for identifying strategic features in golf course design, and that formula almost works. However, this is a case where it obviously fails.

For the record, David, I quite enjoy a lot of penal holes and don't see anything wrong with them in a vacuum, though I might be in the minority on this site. I just don't find the 15th at Augusta to be one of them by virtue of its having a single cross hazard.

[MClutterbuck]

I am failing to grasp why some folks find these distinctions difficult to understand or why they choose take issue with long established definitions.  

Ciao

Me too.  But I suspect it comes down to something you said a while back:  "The big problem here is most folks associate strategic with good architecture and penal with bad architecture."

People seem to have gotten themselves all tangled up because they don't want to admit that there are design aspects of the great ANGC that aren't all that strategic for a high handicapper.   ANGC is great.  Strategic is great.  Therefore everything about ANGC must be strategic for everyone.

David,

I agree. I am not sure discussion of #15 requires that we reinvent the definitions of design.

The discussion makes me wonder (half seriously) if the Masters is held at the wrong club. Perhaps Oakmont would have been better. There was no intent to be strategic. No intent to accommodate mid handicappers. As technology evolved, the course could just have been made ever more difficult and nobody would have cared to have a discussion like this thread.

But, Royal Melbourne is probably the argument against that. The original concept has been well preserved, at least that is what I gathered from my one visit and I think folks like Mike Clayton would agree.

Are most people still under the impression that ANGC does not accomodate amateurs. Quite to the contrary, I believe it is one of the courses that BEST accomodates amateurs from tee to green. The sole exception I have is green slope for putting. The slopes are so tough, that 3 putt greens are the norm. However, as somebody said before, one keeps a huge grin while 3 putting those fantastic greens. Having said this, members that get to play the course often, do much better on the putting, so all in all, ANGC is a huge pleasure to play for amateurs and a great and fair test of golf.

Now, if they had only kept the original bunker designs... that course would be perfect.

[Sven Nilsen]

Here's where you are missing the boat.  The C&W definition doesn't apply to "features", it applies to the "design."

If you don't grasp that distinction, its impossible to have this conversation.

You're grasping at straws. Please explain how feature placement is not a part of the discussion of design.

I never said it wasn't.  What I said was that you don't apply the definition solely to the individual features, you apply it to how the hole works in its entirety, that being the design.

Under the rubric created by C&W's definitions, saying whether or not a particular hazard is penal, or heroic, or strategic makes no sense.  

Its not semantics, its understanding the construct.

Sven

[Jason Thurman]

Are most people still under the impression that ANGC does not accomodate amateurs. Quite to the contrary, I believe it is one of the courses that BEST accomodates amateurs from tee to green. The sole exception I have is green slope for putting. The slopes are so tough, that 3 putt greens are the norm. However, as somebody said before, one keeps a huge grin while 3 putting those fantastic greens. Having said this, members that get to play the course often, do much better on the putting, so all in all, ANGC is a huge pleasure to play for amateurs and a great and fair test of golf.

Now, if they had only kept the original bunker designs... that course would be perfect.

It sounds like we just need to have a Dixie Cup there.

[DMoriarty]

Jason,

I don't think I am confusing anything.  The concept of "strategic design" has meaning in the context of golf course architecture, and that is what I am addressing.  I am not interested in playing word games regarding dictionary definitions of the the word strategy.

I don't particularly love the C&W definitions, but they make more sense than the direction you keep trying to take this.  A carry over a pond to a green with another pond behind is not strategic design for the 15 handicapper.  You can consult all the dictionaries you want, but in the context of a discussion about golf course design, that isn't going to change.  

If you disagree and believe that the 15th hole is in fact an example of penal design, please simply explain how you reconcile the obvious conflict in the fact that those myriad strategic options are created by a feature that C&W define as penal. You and Sean can cite Geoffrey Cornish all you want, but until you can reconcile his theory on strategic design and penal hazards with how it applies to 15 at Augusta National, I remain unimpressed. He was a very smart guy who attempted to define a formula for identifying strategic features in golf course design, and that formula almost works. However, this is a case where it obviously fails.

First, I haven't quoted C&W.  Second, when it comes to the approach for a high handicapper, I have no idea what "strategic options" you think you see.  A golfer could zigzag with a putter from the tee to 80 yards out and that doesn't change the fact that he must hit it over a pond with another pond behind

For the record, David, I quite enjoy a lot of penal holes and don't see anything wrong with them in a vacuum, though I might be in the minority on this site. I just don't find the 15th at Augusta to be one of them by virtue of its having a single cross hazard.

Keeping in mind that we are talking about a 15 handicapper, you don't seem to understand the difference between strategic design and penal design.  

[Jason Thurman]

I have no idea what "strategic options" you think you see.

Post 209, paragraph 4, last sentence in parentheses. Others have been detailed extensively throughout this thread.

Of course he must eventually hit over the pond. He must also eventually hit it off the tee box, and down the fairway, and into the hole. The fact that he has to accomplish a given feat during the course of play doesn't mean he lacks multiple strategically valid and adequately accommodating options for how to go about it.

I might reconsider the above if someone could do what I asked in my last post and explain:

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"?

I don't think anyone will be able to do that though.

Still waiting. The closest thing offered so far is a silly denial of the existence of all the strategic options available. Life would really be more interesting if I wasn't right all the time. I'm out on this thread until someone can do the above. It's been a fun discussion but I don't think there's much left to cover.

[Tim_Weiman]

MClutterbuck,

To my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested Augusta doesn't accommodate amateurs. This thread, for example, is entirely focused on one hole, not Augusta in its entirety.

Also, even going back to GCAs predecessor -traditional golf.com - I don't remember anyone ever making such a suggestion.

[BCowan]

''Now, at some point there was a decision to revise the original design. Those making the design decision could have built something like #16 at Firestone (by creating a pond but leaving a clear path around it). Instead, they elected to create a forced carry. ''

There was a creek running in front of the hole prior to 1949, the small pond maybe added an addition 20-30 yards of carry.  Also the creek went through to the other neighboring holes.  How can the original hole be called Strategic and now be Penal with a small pond?  You still had to carry the creek for your third shot when it was a creek.

[Tim_Weiman]

''Now, at some point there was a decision to revise the original design. Those making the design decision could have built something like #16 at Firestone (by creating a pond but leaving a clear path around it). Instead, they elected to create a forced carry. ''

There was a creek running in front of the hole prior to 1949, the small pond maybe added an addition 20-30 yards of carry.  Also the creek went through to the other neighboring holes.  How can the original hole be called Strategic and now be Penal with a small pond?  You still had to carry the creek for your third shot when it was a creek.

How wide was the creek?

[Sven Nilsen]

Deciding to cover 400 yards in Driver/9I, or 3W/6I, or 8I/8I/8I or Putter²⁵ may be options, but those options in themselves do not make the design of a golf hole Strategic.

That knocks out the majority of your "strategic options."  Everything else is just angles based on the pin position, or deciding to play away from the pin.  In all of those cases, the player still faces a compulsory carry.  

[DMoriarty]

Jason,

You can hem and haw all you like about all the possibilities between the tee and the pond.   But none of your "strategic options" get the 15 handicapper around that pond.  

Except for the silliness suggested by Jeff, there is no avoiding the pond.

[BCowan]

''Now, at some point there was a decision to revise the original design. Those making the design decision could have built something like #16 at Firestone (by creating a pond but leaving a clear path around it). Instead, they elected to create a forced carry. ''

There was a creek running in front of the hole prior to 1949, the small pond maybe added an addition 20-30 yards of carry.  Also the creek went through to the other neighboring holes.  How can the original hole be called Strategic and now be Penal with a small pond?  You still had to carry the creek for your third shot when it was a creek.

How wide was the creek?

''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.''

Going by the C&W definitions which i am not impressed either, you fail to be consistent on them too!  It doesn't matter how wide a creek is, you still have to go over it???   See definition above and the waffling many are doing on this!!

[Tim_Weiman]

Jason,

You can hem and haw all you like about all the possibilities between the tee and the pond.   But none of your "strategic options" get the 15 handicapper around that pond.  

Except for the silliness suggested by Jeff, there is no avoiding the pond.

David,

Nobody seems to have trouble acknowledging #13 at Pine Valley is "strategic" on a course intended to be "penal" overall.

But, with the reverse situation at Augusta and #15, there sure is reluctance to do the same.

Any idea why?

[Tim_Weiman]

''Now, at some point there was a decision to revise the original design. Those making the design decision could have built something like #16 at Firestone (by creating a pond but leaving a clear path around it). Instead, they elected to create a forced carry. ''

There was a creek running in front of the hole prior to 1949, the small pond maybe added an addition 20-30 yards of carry.  Also the creek went through to the other neighboring holes.  How can the original hole be called Strategic and now be Penal with a small pond?  You still had to carry the creek for your third shot when it was a creek.

How wide was the creek?

''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.''

Going by the C&W definitions which i am not impressed either, you fail to be consistent on them too!  It doesn't matter how wide a creek is, you still have to go over it???   See definition above and the waffling many are doing on this!!

So, are you trying to argue the original design for #15 was penal?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()