The Best Strategic Holes Have Highly Penal Hazards. Discuss.

[Niall C]

"Playing between two hazards is penal, especially when the fairway is as narrow as 17.  Granted, one can play lay-up golf for the bogey, but if laying-up is strategic, there are very few penal holes in the world...a lay-up is on offer a huge percentage of the time....but we would never say a design is strategic if pitches a ball short of the hazard than pitches over the water.  The key is the hazard still has to be met head on...just as the player has to eventually play between the hazards on 17.  In its nature, the hole is penal.  If the hole were truly strategic there would be a designed way around the hazards. "

Sean

Just reading your thoughts on the Road Hole in post 12. Surely creating different ways to potentially get the same score ie a par 4 in the case of the Road Hole assuming a chip and putt for those laying up short, is the essence of strategic golf ?

Niall


Edit: a case in point would be Hogan in 1952 Open at Carnoustie when reputedly he laid up at the par 3 16th on all four days and managed to chip and putt each time.

[Joe Zucker]

And yet just to play devil's advocate: is a cape template better executed when the hazard is less penal, eg. sand rather than water?

That's a good question.  I don't mind cape holes with water if there is a large bail out on the other side.  Pete Dye seems to have large bail out areas on his cape holes (#4 at Fowlers Mill or #14 at the Kampen Course) that make the holes very playable even though they are guarded by water for hundreds of yards.  If a cape hole is going to be tight opposite the hazard, water is probably too much IMO.  It makes it difficult and slows the round down.

I'd go so far as to say that if there isn't width then there isn't really strategy and the hole is simply penal. I suppose you could argue that the strategy comes in by way of you choosing whether or not to bite off less by taking less club but, much as I pondered on earlier, is that in itself really strategic design?

I suppose you have the strategy to take less club off the tee, which should be more accurate in theory.  As you said, you can bite off less, but with little width your strategic options are limited.

Something I often wonder, which I'm sure has been discussed before.  What percent of golfers can actually implement a strategy they imagine?  I'm a low single digit player and I can barely hit halves of fairways on a regular basis.  So most golfers (more than 90%) have no chance to play for angles or easier shots.  They are just trying not to lose their ball.  Is strategy overrated for the average player?  But I think part of a good course is that is gives the player lots of options without the player even realizing it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

"Playing between two hazards is penal, especially when the fairway is as narrow as 17.  Granted, one can play lay-up golf for the bogey, but if laying-up is strategic, there are very few penal holes in the world...a lay-up is on offer a huge percentage of the time....but we would never say a design is strategic if pitches a ball short of the hazard than pitches over the water.  The key is the hazard still has to be met head on...just as the player has to eventually play between the hazards on 17.  In its nature, the hole is penal.  If the hole were truly strategic there would be a designed way around the hazards. "

Sean

Just reading your thoughts on the Road Hole in post 12. Surely creating different ways to potentially get the same score ie a par 4 in the case of the Road Hole assuming a chip and putt for those laying up short, is the essence of strategic golf ?

Niall


Edit: a case in point would be Hogan in 1952 Open at Carnoustie when reputedly he laid up at the par 3 16th on all four days and managed to chip and putt each time.

Until recent Opens, I am not sure the fw at 17 TOC was all that narrow in the LZ.

In general, agree that most strategic holes ought to have hazards that ask you not to lay up (see some of my earlier comments about whether golfers EVER took the safe routes on the Prize Winning Hole....) but to choose which part of a target you aim for.  I also think for tough shots, the bail out area ought to be nearly adjacent to the LZ or green, not just well short.  Hey, it can sometimes be long on shorter holes.  

You can ask to go from driver to 3 wood on the tee, or not go for extra distance.  On the approach, you can leave a fw chipping area on the other side of water to double the safe landing zone, even with little benefit.  I sometimes debate whether that resulting chip shot ought to go away from you, making it very tricky and hard, or tilt at you, making it an alternate and safer way to get par.  Of course, if its water to the left, then it usually drains to the water and falls away from the fw chipping area.  And, most would agree it should be somewhat downhill to make it the hard par from an approach played very safely.

However, as hard as it is I still think TOC is strategic, and its great because the difficulty makes the choice dilemma so hard, and the temptation so great.  You wouldn't of course, do that hole difficulty more than once per course.  2-3 of those in a row would be penal, sort of like watching Barney with three consecutive kids is penal.......

[Paul Gray]

Joe,

Very true but then that is why width is so crucial: it enables good players to pick line whilst also enabling weaker players to at least hit the fairway, albeit not necessarily the best bit of the fairway. Remove that width and you lessen the game for all.

[Joe Zucker]

Joe,

Very true but then that is why width is so crucial: it enables good players to pick line whilst also enabling weaker players to at least hit the fairway, albeit not necessarily the best bit of the fairway. Remove that width and you lessen the game for all.

I agree Paul.  The game is really hard.  Lesser players need the width to keep the game fun.  Better players can hopefully take advantage of optimal lines.

[Paul Gray]

So let me throw in a follow up question: has a reduced appreciation of strategic width led to a taming of more penal hazards?

In other words, once you've misguidedly narrowed a fairway, do you feel duty bound to lessen the hazard because there simply isn't any longer the option to steer well clear of it?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul, Good question and I would say yes.

I talk with many golfers and architects who do think in terms of compensating to make things fair.  It makes some sense.  With a cape hole and water all along one side, shouldn't (in an ideal world) the fairway be wider than if there is one solitary bunker out there?  If there is on solitary bunker out there, and its 14 feet deep (a la, play out sideways) vs. 4 feet deep shouldn't the fairway (almost typed "fearway" LOL be wider? 

As 17 TOC illustrates, harder hazards and wider fw (think 13 ANGC) go a lot further to increase the temptation and dilemma.

Strategy still all in the golfers mind, though. I have talked to three Masters participants about 13.  Each say they can draw it around the bend all day long in practice rounds, but aim a little further right every day they stay in competition.

[Paul Gray]

Paul, Good question and I would say yes.

I talk with many golfers and architects who do think in terms of compensating to make things fair.  It makes some sense.  With a cape hole and water all along one side, shouldn't (in an ideal world) the fairway be wider than if there is one solitary bunker out there?  If there is on solitary bunker out there, and its 14 feet deep (a la, play out sideways) vs. 4 feet deep shouldn't the fairway (almost typed "fearway" LOL be wider? 

As 17 TOC illustrates, harder hazards and wider fw (think 13 ANGC) go a lot further to increase the temptation and dilemma.

Strategy still all in the golfers mind, though. I have talked to three Masters participants about 13.  Each say they can draw it around the bend all day long in practice rounds, but aim a little further right every day they stay in competition.

Your thinking on this is much as mine is.

Bottom line then, and I obviously don't mean you personally, is that clubs/architects should stop killing holes by narrowing fairways!

[Thomas Dai]

Joe,
Very true but then that is why width is so crucial: it enables good players to pick line whilst also enabling weaker players to at least hit the fairway, albeit not necessarily the best bit of the fairway. Remove that width and you lessen the game for all.

I agree Paul.  The game is really hard.  Lesser players need the width to keep the game fun.  Better players can hopefully take advantage of optimal lines.

I'm with you Paul and Joe.

Width, and the variations and options that width provides, is, even though I myself am a short hitting usually straightish player, one of the reasons why I really enjoy Minchinhampton Old - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48765.0.html

Players can hit their tee shots 100yds even 200yds offline on most of the holes but they'll still find their ball, however,...... they will most likely have no decent angle for their next shot. Folk can make bogey's all day from almost anywhere but you need to be in the right spots from the tee to make the sort of scores you probably desire to make. Small, firm greens too, with lots of humps and bumps and hollows surrounding them, and of course the playing angles change with changing tee or pin positions and the wind.

A perfect example is Minch' Olds 9th hole, photos below, a 380 yd par-4 usually playing into a right-to-left wind. The tee shot can be up to 150 yds right or left and you'll probably still find your ball and be able to advance it a decent distance towards the green. It's highly unlikely though, that you'll be able to hit the green or the most appropriate area of the green, so a birdie or a par is unlikely especially with the miriad of humps and hollows and slopes etc around and on the green. A miss long or pin high left is most likely bogey/double-bogey time, a miss short-right or pin high right looks easy-peasy from the fairway but is maybe the worse miss of all.

1st photo - taken from photo-tour mentioned above - from the tee. Bushes left are in range for a longer tee shot but there's lots of space left of them for a long wild shot. The optimum line to secure the best angle for the second shot is down the left.


2nd photo - from 100 yds or thereabouts short and slightly right of the green


3rd photo - from just short right of the green


No sand bunkers at all on this hole or the course in total, all the hollows are grass. No sprinkler system either - what nature gives is what the golfer gets.

There are a few other courses that are generally comparable but I'm highlighting this one as it's a particular favourite of mine.

Here's a Bing satmap of the course - http://binged.it/1xijsL2

and here's the club website complete with some terrific photographs, like the one below - http://old.minchinhamptongolfclub.co.uk/



atb

[Paul Gray]

Thomas,

Thanks for that.

I must play Minch Old sonetime in 2015. So many golf courses, so little time.

[Andy Troeger]

"Most severe" might even be more apt than "most penal."

That bunker Tom references on #6 at PD is not in theory as penal as a water hazard. But even if you won't lose your ball in it, probably, it could well wreck your score worse than any "drop and hit it again" pond could.

I'm surprised this quote didn't generate more discussion. I think severe hazard is a better term than penal--and I think of the terms in different ways. Hazards that are not severe don't create thought or fear in golfers--there must be risk to create an interesting reward.

[Joe Zucker]

Thomas,

From the sound of it Minchinhampton has a lot of what we are talking about.  Just because you can find your ball doesn't mean you will have a good shot into the green.  A great example of width increasing playability from the standpoint of both good and average golfers.  As Paul said, so many good courses.  Hopefully I get there one day!

Joe

[Sean_A]

"Most severe" might even be more apt than "most penal."

That bunker Tom references on #6 at PD is not in theory as penal as a water hazard. But even if you won't lose your ball in it, probably, it could well wreck your score worse than any "drop and hit it again" pond could.

I'm surprised this quote didn't generate more discussion. I think severe hazard is a better term than penal--and I think of the terms in different ways. Hazards that are not severe don't create thought or fear in golfers--there must be risk to create an interesting reward.

Andy

I agree.  "Severe" is a better description for a hazard/feature if it relates to the difficulty of recovery.  "Penal" should be reserved for the placement of the hazard.  These discussions are nearly impossible to have because people interchange the two terms or use them to mean the same thing.  Its plainly obvious to me that many folks don't get the idea of penal and strategic at ends of a continuum and that features inherently lean one way or the other simply due to placement. 

Ciao     

[Paul Gray]

"Most severe" might even be more apt than "most penal."

That bunker Tom references on #6 at PD is not in theory as penal as a water hazard. But even if you won't lose your ball in it, probably, it could well wreck your score worse than any "drop and hit it again" pond could.

I'm surprised this quote didn't generate more discussion. I think severe hazard is a better term than penal--and I think of the terms in different ways. Hazards that are not severe don't create thought or fear in golfers--there must be risk to create an interesting reward.

Andy

I agree.  "Severe" is a better description for a hazard/feature if it relates to the difficulty of recovery.  "Penal" should be reserved for the placement of the hazard.  These discussions are nearly impossible to have because people interchange the two terms or use them to mean the same thing.  Its plainly obvious to me that many folks don't get the idea of penal and strategic at ends of a continuum and that features inherently lean one way or the other simply due to placement.  

Ciao    

I have thought much the same but I'm not sure that this site is the place to dumb things down. If people don't understand the distinction,  better that they either do their homework or at least recognise they have much to learn.

I kind of thought the title in itself might get people thinking about the distinction.