[Patrick_Mucci]

Should the punishment for missing a green increase as the golfer's ball's distance from the green increases ?

Or, is that an excessive penalty, especially for the higher handicap golfer ?

The photo below illustrates the above example quite well.

A marginal shot is not punished nearly as much as a shot that misses by a wider margin.

Is that good or bad ?

On a windy site ?

P.S.  Thanks Paul

[Paul Gray]

Note: The picture is actually taken from just left of the tee, meaning you can't see the one other bunker which is just left of the green. Nonetheless, it works as a good example of what Pat is getting at. You'd rather be in any of those pot bunkers than in the real rubbish on the left. This is not the hole to find a snap hook on. Furthermore, wide of the pots, meaning a shot back over them, is certainly not good. Enough said.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

But, being in any of those bunkers, especially the ones offset further from the green, is a dire punishment, one that the poorer player can't hope to meet.

It would seem that the very poor player is disproportionately punished.

[Paul Gray]

Paul,

But, being in any of those bunkers, especially the ones offset further from the green, is a dire punishment, one that the poorer player can't hope to meet.

It would seem that the very poor player is disproportionately punished.

I've just never bought into this whole notion that a weak player can't get out of a pot bunker. It's a modern myth. I see little old ladies getting the ball out of those. It's not easy for them, I grant you, but with the greens running firm it can actually be harder for the stronger player as you have to be a little delicate whilst also generating enough force to generate height. It is often better to take extra sand and chunk the ball out.

But regardless, your point is still valid. A marginal miss, either too long or too short, is no disaster. Wild and wide is where trouble really lies.

[archie_struthers]

 


Pine Valley certainly punishes the miss incrementally , with its large playing areas and large greens .  Just don't miss them !

[Jon Wiggett]

I cannot think of one single quality hole which does.

[Paul Gray]

Jon,

What do you mean?

Sorry. Clearly I'm just being dim but I don't understand what you're getting at.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

What do you mean?

Sorry. Clearly I'm just being dim but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Paul,

name me a single quality golf hole which punishes the golfer incrementally the further off line they hit it.

[David Whitmer]

I think a few such holes on a course are great. I can see the logic of having a ball marginally mis-hit being better off than a ball being fairly mis-hit. However, I think a major part of the fun of the game (for me at least) is the challenge that comes with knowing that if a shot misses even by the slimmest of margins, it's going to find trouble.

One such hole is the 2nd at Royal Dornoch. The first time I played it, I hit my tee ball a bit chunky, but straight, and I ended up ten yards in front of the green for a fairly easy up-and-down. In the afternoon I hit a solid shot that faded a bit, hit the green, and barely trickled off the right side, where it rolled and rolled, and stopped at a place where there was no way I was going to make par. Now, I hit the second shot better than the first, but the first ended in a better spot.

Same with the third at The Golf Club. I could miss the green right by a foot, or miss left by ten yards, and I'll take being left all day long, due to the right-to-left slope. I think that is good architecture; nothing wrong with knowing that if you try a certain shot, and miss in the wrong spot by even a foot, you're in a spot of trouble. So to answer Pat's question, I think incremental punishment is okay at times, but in the end it may lack variety and interest.

[Paul Gray]

Jon,

What do you mean?

Sorry. Clearly I'm just being dim but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Paul,

name me a single quality golf hole which punishes the golfer incrementally the further off line they hit it.

Well, I suppose it depends on just what or how incremental we are talking about.

The hole in the picture is certainly a good par 3 which I'd rather narrowly miss than snap hook one 30 yards left or block a mile to the right. But then many probably would automatically panic about those pots without realising that they're really not that scary. I seem to recall Tiger having a bit of a disaster some years ago on the Postage Stamp so he might disagree with me as well!

I'd make the same argument about any plateau in that I'd rather be simply at the bottom of the plateau than twenty yards away from it pitching onto it and then judging the release on the upslope. And come to think of it, isn't that really the nature of all the run offs and upturned saucer greens at Pinehurst?

Equally, David makes reference to hitting a better shot at Royal Dornoch the second time he played the hole but ending up worse off than when he hit a poor shot in the morning. But then we really need to ask what we really mean by good or bad. In the case of links golf, very often a better shot can be thinner but straight, as per David's experience. So there's perhaps no clear meaning as to what constitutes good or bad, meaning incremental punishment in relation to the quality of the shot is subjective, as is what constitutes trouble as it is dependant on a players' playing attributes.

[Thomas Dai]

Nice photo Pat/Paul.

I'm pondering whether lessor/inexperienced players think in advance of hitting their shot, any shot really, not just the tee shot on a par-3 such as the one highlighted, where the easy side of a green is or where is the best place to miss the green might be or do things like spotting 'sucker pins' etc only come as the years go by?

After all, a player of hcp 18 or above will be getting a shot on the hole, so in relation to the hole highlighted, a 4 isn't really a bad score at all. Indeed there's an argument that says that if lessor/inexperienced players were to lay-up or play quite conservatively on more difficult par-3's they might even make a few more par's. Just a thought.

Atb

[Marc Haring]

Jon,

What do you mean?

Sorry. Clearly I'm just being dim but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Paul,

name me a single quality golf hole which punishes the golfer incrementally the further off line they hit it.

This one?

[DMoriarty]

The original question belongs in one the threads discussing penal vs. strategic architecture. 

Should the punishment for missing a green increase as the golfer's ball's distance from the green increases ?

An affirmative answer pretty much defines penal architecture.

[Paul Gray]

The original question belongs in one the threads discussing penal vs. strategic architecture. 

Should the punishment for missing a green increase as the golfer's ball's distance from the green increases ?

An affirmative answer pretty much defines penal architecture.

Funnily enough, I was just thinking that the par 3 in the picture is, by its very nature, a very penal hole.

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

I always loved the shape of the opening green at Pine Valley
The fact that it narrows as it progresses back
But the kicker has always been the increased depth of hazard the deeper you attack.

I don't think it's what you meant, but I always thought of this as "incremental" punishment

[Grant Saunders]

Isnt the longer distance shot required for missing further from a green a proportional form of punishment in itself? Particularly for the poorer player  who would be less likely to get up and down on a longer shot even with no hazards or obstacles between them and the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isnt the longer distance shot required for missing further from a green a proportional form of punishment in itself? Particularly for the poorer player  who would be less likely to get up and down on a longer shot even with no hazards or obstacles between them and the hole.

Grant,

It's not the incremental distance between 5 and 15 yards that determines the harshness of the recovery, rather, the nature of what confronts the golfer at 5 versus 15 yards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I always loved the shape of the opening green at Pine Valley
The fact that it narrows as it progresses back
But the kicker has always been the increased depth of hazard the deeper you attack.

I don't think it's what you meant, but I always thought of this as "incremental" punishment

Ian,

I too have always been fascinated by the increase in the challenge, in terms of a smaller target and an increasing penalty for missing that target, as the hole location is moved back on the first green.

The first time I ever play that hole I hit a 6-iron pretty close to a very back hole location.
When I arrived at my ball I was shocked by how close I came to disaster.
Had I known what awaited me at the flanks and long I would have hit a 7 or 8-iron into the middle or front of the green and taken my chances at two putting.   

Do you know the story of the fellow who had a birdie putt to a back hole location and putted it off the green ?
Rather than play it, he declared an unplayable, and holed the next putt for a halving birdie.
That's good thinking as getting up and down after missing that green is almost impossible

It's not exactly what I had in mind because a narrow miss and a wider miss are presented with a similar fate

[BCrosby]

The original question belongs in one the threads discussing penal vs. strategic architecture. 

Should the punishment for missing a green increase as the golfer's ball's distance from the green increases ?

An affirmative answer pretty much defines penal architecture.

Agreed. I'd put it slightly differently. Penal architecture is about equity (a/k/a proportionality), understood in the sense that the severity of punishments should correspond to the degree to which a shot is missed.

Bob

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

What do you mean?

Sorry. Clearly I'm just being dim but I don't understand what you're getting at.

Paul,

name me a single quality golf hole which punishes the golfer incrementally the further off line they hit it.

This one?

But it is not incremental as missing 10 yards right is in the drink where as same distance left is a chip to the green ergo the two equally poor shots are punished with differing harshness.

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

name me a single quality golf hole which punishes the golfer incrementally the further off line they hit it.

This one?

Not really.

Shots hit short or left are punished far less by wider misses.

Shots missed right are inititally punished less because there's turf to the right of the right side bunker.
Ditto long


[/quote]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()