Strategic V Penal Design

[Mark Fedeli]

A lot of the drumbeat for a certain type of "strategic" design is born of the desire that somehow or another playing "smart golf" will allow a clever golfer to think his way around the course in a similar number of strokes to someone who hits the ball straighter, farther, more consistently and has a better chipping and putting game.

Not as few strokes, but it should make it easier for him to have as much fun as the better player.

[Jason Topp]

Good topic. Two examples show how I think of the issue:

I have come to the conclusion that my course, Windsong Farm, is essentially a penal course.  It takes a number of rounds to realize that it is penal in nature because it has many of the features one associates with a strategic course - wide fairways, firm conditions when conditions allow, short grass around the greens with all sorts of terrific chip shots and interesting greens with preferred angles of attack and deep bunkers that are a real hazard.  

Nonetheless, the primary question it asks off the tee is whether or not you can hit the ball a long way within the confines of wide fairways.  The fairway bunkers are usually on the opposite side from the best angle into the green.  There is no temptation to hit the ball near them other than in some cases saving a few yards.  By my count there is some sort of hazard on the preferred side of the fairway on 5 of the 14 par 4's and 5's.  

Course tour: http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/windsongfarmgc/aerial.htm

Strategic fairway hazards on 3 (bunkers on rt); 6 (bunker on left); 11 (bunkers on left); 12 (wetland on left off tee, bunkers at layup spots for 2nd); 18 (creek/pond on rt)

I consider the course at my former club to be much more strategic.  There I count 10 of the 14 par 4's and 5's as having some sort of hazard guarding the preferred side of the fairway.  That course has more narrow tree lined fairways so the strategic nature of the challenge would also not be readily apparent the first time you play the course.  Some of the other holes are very penal but the challenge of hitting a drive down a narrow fairway with trees close by is a nice change of pace there.

Course Tour:  http://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/oakridgecc1/aerial.htm


Strategic hazards on 2(trees at corner and slope); 4 (bunker on rt); 5 (bunker on rt) 8(bunker on rt); 10(pond); 12 (trees on left and slopes); 13 (angled ridge/trees); 14 (bunker on left off tee, slopes for 2nd); 15 (bunker/slope rt); 18 (bunker, slopes, blind shot on left)

There can be bad holes that are strategic and good ones that are penal.  I think of most holes going around a pond as strategic, particularly if they favor a tee ball placed near the water.  Nonetheless, I am not a huge fan of a steady diet of such holes.  By contrast, I have no idea what might be considered strategic about the Klondyke hole at Lahinch, but I would love to play it again.  

[Paul Gray]

If all this mumbo/jumbo is true how can you explain that the penal White Course at Dismal is three to four shots easier than the Strategic Red.

Maybe your physical ability is superior to your mental ability.

That wouldn't be hard.

Sean,

Great thread. Certainly one deserving of some serious consideration before commenting further.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It would seem to me from the last few comments that there may be a generalized consensus that there may be two types of strategic courses - Tour Pro strategic and Club level strategic.

I believe most players will assess a shot based on probability of pulling it off (as the GA guys would like).  Let's say a rational golfer will make the go-no go decision based on a 2/3 to 1/3 idea of actually pulling it off (sort of like no general likes to go to battle with less than a 2:1 advantage in troops)  Of course, there are exceptions when you have to go to battle/make a shot with worse odds....)

That obviously varies in the type of shot challenges you ask golfers to do, the amount of room you leave them, and the degree of penalty.  The tour pro probably has the 2 to 1 chance of pulling off most shots, including bunker recovery.  All factors can be more difficult and still achieve a positive vibe in taking a shot risk.

So, we can't, as some have alluded, leave difficulty out of the strategic discussion, but have to realize it just is viewed differently by all golfer levels.

[Paul Gray]

Regarding strategic design, what consideration should be given to options about length, rather than line? What I mean by that is I frequently hear club golfers saying that the fairway was narrowed to "make the better players think about leaving driver in the bag." I've personally always dismissed this as just a misguided attempt to protect par. Nonetheless, it has to be conceded that such actions do introduce options and I can think of a few holes which I love which are excellent BECAUSE of the lack of width. For anyone that has played it, the 13th at Hayling comes to mind. In another example, let's say........

We see a 265 yard par 4 which gets those that can thinking about driving the green. We narrow the fairway and in doing so hope to get many at least thinking about hitting a four iron off the tee. Clearly we have opened up a strategic thought process which wasn't likely to present itself before. Is that a move towards strategic or have we limited the holes strategic qualities by simply replacing angles with a question about length?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I would prefer to keep the element of difficulty out of the picture for strategic and penal...the difficulty really has nothing to do with the theory.  Just as the severity of the hazard has nothing to do with the theory...they are both important, but really other aspects of design.  I think this is an important distinction because otherwise we are really just talking about our games...what is hard or easy to us.

I was trying to broaden the theory.  Given the ongoing debate, the "theory" of Strategic v Penal seems fundamentally flawed to me.

Re the last sentence, how is difficulty different from strategy in theory - what may be strategic options on a hole for us may not be relevant to Bubba at one end of the scale or my wife at the other end.  Hard or easy depends to a degree on the ability of the player.  So too does strategic as well as penal.

Bryan

I disagree.  The Strategic Design Continuum is independent of player ability.  But if you wish, though I think it is a waste of time to continue referring to pros as base point for discussion, I could see bifurcated Strategic Design Continuum.  Part of the problem when folks talk about this stuff is they imagine themselves, but themselves never mis-hitting a shot.  I hear stuff like the hole is easy IF all the time.  

Paul

Layups are indeed another choice, though less interesting.  It should also be noted that layups because of a forced carry is still penal golf if the carry is merely delayed.  

As for narrowness, this may well be the major aspect of bifurcated strategic design.  The pros do need a certain lack of with to keep them honest, but when it is to the point of 20-25 yards of with harsh penalties either side, I think its OTT.
   
Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

Good point. In my view, encouraging golfers to leave driver in the bag is fine, but not so good a concept that I would want to see it more than once or maybe twice per golf course, and only on mid length holes (hitting 3 wood or less on a 475 par 4 or 575 par 5 just pisses folks off)  When I use it twice maybe once is a dramatic narrowing at some point, and the other is gradual narrowing of the fw as the yards tick by, maybe the golfer doesn't even notice it is narrow at the full distance than twenty yards back.

And laying up is certainly no fun for most.  Add in the fact that strategic golf is supposed to subtly encourage shots, while penal discourages them (simplistic side definition) and I would put the lay up shot in the penal category, if I had to.....

[Jason Topp]

Regarding strategic design, what consideration should be given to options about length, rather than line? What I mean by that is I frequently hear club golfers saying that the fairway was narrowed to "make the better players think about leaving driver in the bag." I've personally always dismissed this as just a misguided attempt to protect par. Nonetheless, it has to be conceded that such actions do introduce options and I can think of a few holes which I love which are excellent BECAUSE of the lack of width. For anyone that has played it, the 13th at Hayling comes to mind. In another example, let's say........

We see a 265 yard par 4 which gets those that can thinking about driving the green. We narrow the fairway and in doing so hope to get many at least thinking about hitting a four iron off the tee. Clearly we have opened up a strategic thought process which wasn't likely to present itself before. Is that a move towards strategic or have we limited the holes strategic qualities by simply replacing angles with a question about length?

I have thought abou the issue that way but believe choices with respect to line generally create more interests than decisions as to whether to layup.  It sucks to lay up and one's carry distance is finite.  Thus, the choice carries little mystery.

[Paul Gray]

Regarding strategic design, what consideration should be given to options about length, rather than line? What I mean by that is I frequently hear club golfers saying that the fairway was narrowed to "make the better players think about leaving driver in the bag." I've personally always dismissed this as just a misguided attempt to protect par. Nonetheless, it has to be conceded that such actions do introduce options and I can think of a few holes which I love which are excellent BECAUSE of the lack of width. For anyone that has played it, the 13th at Hayling comes to mind. In another example, let's say........

We see a 265 yard par 4 which gets those that can thinking about driving the green. We narrow the fairway and in doing so hope to get many at least thinking about hitting a four iron off the tee. Clearly we have opened up a strategic thought process which wasn't likely to present itself before. Is that a move towards strategic or have we limited the holes strategic qualities by simply replacing angles with a question about length?

I have thought abou the issue that way but believe choices with respect to line generally create more interests than decisions as to whether to layup.  It sucks to lay up and one's carry distance is finite.  Thus, the choice carries little mystery.

I'd almost always agree.

Nonetheless, it raises an interest point I think in that we shouldn't immediately associate narrow with penal. Or maybe we should. Therein lies the point.

[Mark Fedeli]

We see a 265 yard par 4 which gets those that can thinking about driving the green. We narrow the fairway and in doing so hope to get many at least thinking about hitting a four iron off the tee. Clearly we have opened up a strategic thought process which wasn't likely to present itself before. Is that a move towards strategic or have we limited the holes strategic qualities by simply replacing angles with a question about length?

Paul, it would depend on the situation around the green, no? Longer hitters would first need a reason to even contemplate laying back before the fairway width becomes a consideration. Otherwise, he'll just bomb away and chip it on while the narrow fairway only penalizes the shorter hitters.

I like how it's done on #10 at Tallgrass (Gil Hanse), which is one of my all time faves. 260 yards from the middle tees (300 from the back) to the front of a very narrow green that has a severely deep bunker all down the left side and a steep fall off on the right. The right side fairway bunker seems benign but I've seen it wreak all sorts of havoc. It forces all lay-ups to be carefully considered and encourages players to lay up much further back and much further left than they'd like.

[Paul Gray]

All excellent responses to the issue of 'strategy in line.'

Sean,

I entirely take your point about bifurcation but might just disagree about the need for it. I'm not sure that preventing balls from running seriously offline at any level is necessary. Give 'em enough rope etc. Then again, I might have a few more penal bunkers than you to keep 'em honest. 

[Sean_A]

All excellent responses to the issue of 'strategy in line.'

Sean,

I entirely take your point about bifurcation but might just disagree about the need for it. I'm not sure that preventing balls from running seriously offline at any level is necessary. Give 'em enough rope etc. Then again, I might have a few more penal bunkers than you to keep 'em honest. 

To be honest Paul, I am not sure anything can be done to make watching the pros more interesting...which is really what its about at that level for me.  The style of golf played is quite simply not entertaining.  I think what we would consider an interesting course played with good wind is about the only thing that really peaks my interest.  So from that perspective, I agree, design bifurcation is pointless, just at its pointless to cite pros for how golf or courses are played.  But it sure seems like a ton of people are nose ringed by the idea what pros do and what their courses look like.  I have said it before, but pro golf and to a large degree championship golf, have a lot to answer for 

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

All excellent responses to the issue of 'strategy in line.'

Sean,

I entirely take your point about bifurcation but might just disagree about the need for it. I'm not sure that preventing balls from running seriously offline at any level is necessary. Give 'em enough rope etc. Then again, I might have a few more penal bunkers than you to keep 'em honest. 

To be honest Paul, I am not sure anything can be done to make watching the pros more interesting...which is really what its about at that level for me.  The style of golf played is quite simply not entertaining.  I think what we would consider an interesting course played with good wind is about the only thing that really peaks my interest.  So from that perspective, I agree, design bifurcation is pointless, just at its pointless to cite pros for how golf or courses are played.  But it sure seems like a ton of people are nose ringed by the idea what pros do and what their courses look like.  I have said it before, but pro golf and to a large degree championship golf, have a lot to answer for 

Ciao

I can add little other than to say that I utterly agree. Usually someone picks me up for blaming modern TV golf but I struggle to believe that the effect has been anything but negative. When I was a kid I first got excited about golf when some Spanish fella was doing all sorts of crazy on alinks golf course. You don't see that now. I rest my case.

[Peter Pallotta]

To me, the most boring kind of golf is played on what I'd call 'strategic-by-default' golf courses. There are choices aplenty there, but the choices tend to be routine and to lack any purpose/meaning. They are created as if by accident, willy-nilly, a function more of abundant space/playing surfaces than of engaging design plans/concepts, and they lose whatever meaning they might have had because of the shallow and distinctly un-penal hazards that frame them.  In short: please give me water and deep bunkers and high rough and some tight playing corridors and occasionally wicked green surrounds if you want to offer me a strategic design. 

Peter   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Are you being serious, or did JK snag your login information?  At the very least, a contrarian view (other than avoiding benign hazards) to the group think that usually prevails here......

But, I do agree lots of holes look too much alike, with a lateral bunker one side or other of fairway, angles not really in play, etc.  The will say "strategic masterpiece" on the scorecard, but really, one FW and then bunker left, bunker right at the green?  Is it really as strategic as it might be?

[BCrosby]

Agreed Peter. To put what you said slightly differently, there is a (mild) irony in often finding the most punitive architectural features on the most strategic golf courses.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

Along the continuum, this is where we probably ought to have a general definition of shallow and unpunitive hazards.

Thinking of FW hazards, is it your belief a strategic course ought to have one too deep to do anything but wedge out?
Deep enough to advance pretty far, but not quite to the green, and force a layup short of the green?
Shallow enough to have a 33-66% chance of reaching the green, depending on lie and stance?
Shallow enough that the hazard is not really much different than the fw, other than surface type?

I doubt anyone here says the last one, but I have lost a few commissions at clubs where the members thought the fourth option was perfect design!

[Josh Tarble]

Along the continuum, this is where we probably ought to have a general definition of shallow and unpunitive hazards.

Thinking of FW hazards, is it your belief a strategic course ought to have one too deep to do anything but wedge out?
Deep enough to advance pretty far, but not quite to the green, and force a layup short of the green?
Shallow enough to have a 33-66% chance of reaching the green, depending on lie and stance?
Shallow enough that the hazard is not really much different than the fw, other than surface type?

I doubt anyone here says the last one, but I have lost a few commissions at clubs where the members thought the fourth option was perfect design!

Jeff, that's a good post.  I often associate strategic holes with very penal hazards - hazards that the player desperately wants to avoid, but must confront in order to gain the preferred angle.

[Jason Topp]

Along the continuum, this is where we probably ought to have a general definition of shallow and unpunitive hazards.

Thinking of FW hazards, is it your belief a strategic course ought to have one too deep to do anything but wedge out?
Deep enough to advance pretty far, but not quite to the green, and force a layup short of the green?
Shallow enough to have a 33-66% chance of reaching the green, depending on lie and stance?
Shallow enough that the hazard is not really much different than the fw, other than surface type?

I doubt anyone here says the last one, but I have lost a few commissions at clubs where the members thought the fourth option was perfect design!

I am in favor of variety.  It seems to me there should be some places you know you need to avoid and others that aren't that big of a deal.  Discovering the difference is part of the fun of learning a course.

[ward peyronnin]

I haven't seen anyone examine how the chance for recovery defines if a design is penal.

While a design can be penal and still offer some degree of recovery those features that offer little/no chance for recovery undoubtedly will allow a design to be deemed penal. Not all bunkers are penal but Oakmont's church pews, and to many the practice of unraked bunkers are markedly penal.

Therefore many of Sean's exampled penal holes at NB to me are mislabeled as such because the hazards don't necessarily preclude recovery

[Jason Topp]

I haven't seen anyone examine how the chance for recovery defines if a design is penal.


Therefore many of Sean's exampled penal holes at NB to me are mislabeled as such because the hazards don't necessarily preclude recovery

I do not define the term "penal" in terms of whether or not a hazard allows recovery.  You can have recoverable hazards on a penal course and water on a strategic course. 

[Paul Gray]

Agreed Peter. To put what you said slightly differently, there is a (mild) irony in often finding the most punitive architectural features on the most strategic golf courses.

Bob

Hmmm, Tom Doak once wrote something which struck a cord with me about how it wad good to have the more penal hazards on the less penal holes. I've always naturally gravitated to that idea.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - after your post to me the thread kept going in a meaningful direction, so I won't go backwards. But what I wanted to suggest is that, like all approaches in all arts-crafts, the current dominant approach in gca (one that just about every architect, and i think certainly every architect who posts here, works within/ascribes to) has an achilles heel. That potential weakness is that "strategic" devolves into "strategic by default" and that the "Golden Age" becomes "Golden Age - Lite".  My post was simply suggesting that I see a lot of that in mid-range public golf courses ranging from the 1970s up into the early 2000s -- i.e. safe, sterile, pasteurized "Golden Age - Lite" designs that rest a little too comfortably on their "strategic" bona-fides and so feel like "strategic-by-default" courses. 

Peter

[Sean_A]

I haven't seen anyone examine how the chance for recovery defines if a design is penal.

While a design can be penal and still offer some degree of recovery those features that offer little/no chance for recovery undoubtedly will allow a design to be deemed penal. Not all bunkers are penal but Oakmont's church pews, and to many the practice of unraked bunkers are markedly penal.

Therefore many of Sean's exampled penal holes at NB to me are mislabeled as such because the hazards don't necessarily preclude recovery

Chez Wardo

This is part of the problem people have in discussing penal architecture.  Penal design in the "classic" sense has nothing to do with the severity of the penal feature, its the placement which matters.  I agree that many folks will carry on about deep bunkers or water etc, but that is really a separate question.  Why?  because severe hazards can just as easily be used strategically.  The difficulty of any hazard is down to player ability while strategic or penal design is independent of ability. 

In a very real sense, it makes sense to have very severe hazards used strategically so long as the reward for taking on the risk is great.  If the hazards are on the other hand weak, many will not see much risk involved.  Its a balancing act with the severity of the hazard to match the design style.
 
Ciao

[Chris DeToro]

I think the 14th at Wannamoisett is a great example here.  A short, dogleg right par 4 with a pond on the right so placed that it leaves several different options--lay up with a mid iron short of the green leaving a similar length shot into the green, play straight ahead and short of where the fairway turns or bomb away for the green. 

The hazard is placed strategically so that the reward of each option is almost perfectly correlated with the risk