A good golf course asks thought-provoking questions of the player.

[Greg Smith]

I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Lancaster this past weekend.  My expectations of the course were pretty high, but I found it even better than I expected.  Watching the course of play on these holes was a perfect vehicle to explain shotmaking and strategy to my 12 y.o. daughter (who does play a little).  To me, the course asked all the right questions of the players -- and to me that is a mark of excellence.  I thought the best example of this was play on the 10th.
 
Standing on the tee, that hole bends to the right around a large bunker.  Not that much of a carry, maybe 180 yards or so from the member tee.  The fairway then swoops uphill over a rise on the left before bending back right to approach the green, which is guarded by a deep bunker front right.  The green itself is canted left to right, and back to front.  The playing angles are masterful and will cause a player to be ensnared if he doesn't think before hitting.
 
If you think from the tee forward and take that drive at face value, you just bomb it over the right hand fairway bunker to cut the distance, and this lands you in a flat area to give a good stance.  What you can't see well from the tee is just how much the greenside bunker and the cant of the green dictate approach shots.  If you flip your thinking and work from the green backwards, the real answer is as follows:
 
Q1.  What kind of putt can I realistically make on that green?   A1.  I had better be below the hole.
Q2.  How do I get below the hole?   A2.  The best ball rolls in from the left, taking the slope.  Attempts to directly challenge the greenside bunker with an aerial shot leave too little margin for error.
Q3.  How do I get the best angle for a running shot?   A3.  By approaching from the far left, on the OUTSIDE of the dogleg.
Q4.  Doesn't that increase the distance?  A4.  So what?  That makes a running shot more effective.
Q5.  What about the sidehill stance on the left?  A5.  So what?  Ball below your feet might help you hit a nice fade.
 
We watched one player pairing that illustrated the concept perfectly.  First girl aimed her drive at the bunker and hit a draw which landed near the left edge of the fairway.  Crowd reaction?  Couple of polite claps.  Second girl hit a massive power fade over the bunker down into the flatter area, must have been at least 30 yards past her playing partner.  Crowd reaction?  Big cheer.
 
Second shots told the real story, though.  First girl hit a fading hybrid which landed left front edge and rolled right, leaving her 15 feet below the hole with a reasonable putt.  Second girl had to play the aerial short iron over the angled front right bunker, maybe got worried about the shot, and airmailed it to the back fringe with a slippery downhill putt.  Who played the hole better?  The girl who answered Mr. Flynn's questions correctly.  But to further amplify the idea, those questions might be different for different players, or for players with different goals.
 
Let's say I was playing this hole from the member's tee.  I used to be an 8 handicap a long time ago, but now I'm older and more like an 18.  My best drive these days is maybe 220 or so.  What would my questions and answers be?  What would be my scoring goal?
 
Q1.  What kind of putt can I realistically make on that green?  A1.  I had better be below the hole.
Q2.  How do I realistically and consistently get in that position?   A2.  With a chip from short and left of the green.
Q3.  How do I get to that spot consistently?   A3.  By playing a club I can hit reliably up the hill, from the easiest stance possible. Let's say a five-iron.
Q4.  Given these suppositions, where should my drive finish; with a better angle or with a better stance?   A4.  With a better stance; since I am not challenging the greenside bunker, the angle doesn't matter.
Q5.  In that case, can I carry the fairway bunker and get to the flattest area?   A5.  I think so; I would go ahead and blast it down the right.  If I execute my two "optimized" shots correctly, I then have a possible chip and putt for a four, and certainly take seven out of play.
 
So as you can see, Flynn's strategy for the 10th hole is adaptive enough to pose interesting questions for many players in many situations.  Some of the answers might be counterintuitive.  This is the mark of a good work.  Though Flynn's holes can sometimes seem a little brutal (and the 10th is no exception), they do not lack artistry.  You just have to use your head out there, identify the question at hand, and you'll be OK despite the difficulty.  I think that is just the sort of mindset a golf architect should be trying to incite. 
 
Many of the the other holes at Lancaster operated at the same high level in my opinion.  There were a couple of them that I didn't really like (especially the tough, tough uphill 9th), but for the most part the place is very impressive.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Greg:


Well explained.


The hardest concept for some players to grasp is the idea that there is not always a single "right" way to play a hole that the architect has designed into it.  The best holes are more complicated than that, as you've made a great case for here.


If your twelve-year-old really understood all of that, maybe she'll be an architect someday.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Your answer seems to be an add on to your recent answer about simplistic strategic thinking on another thread.  And, I agree.

Talking with Tour Players who really had to grind it out to be competitive may be the best way to learn real strategy as played today.  Sometimes, I wish I could have talked to great players back in the day to see what additional nuances above Bobby Jones "4 basic advantages" they might have.  As much as we take those classic guys strategy for granted as great, do we really know how well it was embraced and used at the time?  Especially the unique Mac multiple route concept hole.....

I have mentioned a few "for instances" here over the years from the current guys I know.  Questions they ask also include

Q.Do I challenge a hazard with driver or iron (on the second)
A. Usual answer, on the second, a shorter club

Q. How much distance advantage do I need to risk challenging a bunker?
A. At least 2, preferably 2.5-3 clubs shorter.

Q. What is the real advantage of a frontal opening? 
A. If between clubs, it allows hitting the shorter for the uphill putt.  If I don't have it, I need to play long with greater spin.

Q. If I want to hit the front left corner and use the L-R slope to get to the pin, where do I want to approach from?
A.  Usually the far right side, because it allows my planned soft fade the most room for error, sort of like teeing off on the OB side of the tee and aiming for the far side of the FW away from OB.

Q.  Are the shot requirements sufficiently difficult to dictate that I stray from my preferred shot pattern, or am I better off just hitting my typical draw (fade)?
A.  There are only a few real grinders on tour that use "all the shots."

Most try to fit their best shot in as best they can.  Back in the day, Faldo was the best known player for using all shot shapes.  Although, I had an interesting conversation with Lanny Wadkins once, and his answer was that he used all the shots when he was playing well, and went back to his typical draw when not as confident.

That is the real challenge for architects and players in figuring out how a hole should play.  With most golfers, how they feel every day is more important than the textbook drawings of the hole.

[Brent Hutto]

I've long suspected that my own personal criteria for greatness in a golf course are somewhat different than a) an elite tournament player or b) the most hard-core "strategy" thinkers on this forum. Greg's list of "questions" posted by Lancaster CC solidifies that impression.


If I played a course with even a fraction of that kind of thinking in mind I might as well stay home because first of all, it is much more like work than fun and secondly because I wouldn't have a prayer of actually executing decent golf swings.


This is also why I've accepted for quite a while now that I can't really learn much about a golf course from one or even two rounds. I can't *study* every shot, every green, every hole and reduce it to a D-Day Invasion level of contingency planning. The only way I can build up a list of possible ways to scrape out a decent score is to play the hole myself over and over or play it at least a few times and see other players' shots.


That said, I'd imagine Lancaster CC might easily be a "great" course by my reckoning even if not for the reasons Greg outlines. But I'd have to figure out its greatness by trial and error relative to a few rounds of my own golf. For me it's more about the visual geometry and textures presented when I'm standing over the ball and whether my own personal mapping of those features works or doesn't work when I try the shot that visually suggests itself.


You remember that graphic that one of the networks (NBC?) used for a while where a computer simulation dumped a thousand golf balls onto a putting green and tracked where they all ended up after bouncing and rolling? And all the networks now show that map of where every tee shot has landed on a hole so far during a tournament, color coded with black for bogeys and so forth to show how the players ended up scoring after hitting it there. I think my mental map of a course I've played several times is a personalized version of those two pictures and I actually steer myself around the course relative to my memories of what has worked or didn't. I can't reduce it to a checklist of discrete "questions" being posed by each given feature on a course.

[Greg Smith]

For sure I am an analytical sort of fellow.  It makes me happy when I think I see a detail, then think I figured out how it might work, and then I see it actually work when tried.  In a warped sort of way I find that calming!  I guess it makes me feel (probably erroneously) like I've got a handle on things. 
 
But the reverse, sort of "experiential" mode of thinking is just as valid.  It's two sides of the same coin, and it takes some of each of these qualities to properly appreciate the fine arts -- which to me certainly includes golf architecture.
 
The shotmaking/strategy elements of a hole might have very little to do with the "flavor" of a golf experience.  That is why an afternoon out on the local dog track muni with your buddies and a few brewskis can be a great thing.  It's also why some of those very quirky, odd, out of the way UK courses can potentially be great, even life-changing golf experiences.
 
Lancaster CC has beauty and "flavor" elements too.  But I think it really is loaded with strategic/shotmaking qualities.  I am thinking much of that was created by Flynn's skills with land use/routing -- it's not just all up and down on that course once you take a close look at it.  It was these things that most drew my interest over the weekend.

[Peter Pallotta]

Greg - good post.


It's useful to think like an architect. The good ones have a puritanical streak in their natures: they won't torment an honest and humble soul, but they enjoy bringing down those mighty-in-their-own-eyes and showing up the follies of ego and pride.


The 10th hole you describe reminds me of this rule-of-thumb: if a flanking/fairway bunker is easily carried off the tee, it's a sucker's play to go over it. The golfer accrues no benefit for doing so, save for the puffing up of his ego; and, very soon after he's swaggered up to his ball he'll discover the price he'll now have to pay for his self-conceit.  (Architects love wiping the smug smile off an 8 handicapper's face.)


Peter

[MCirba]

Greg,

Nice job.   This is the type of thread that shows that this Discussion Group can and should be.

I have nothing relevant to add beyond what others have offered to date but look forward to watching the discussion.

[Tom_Doak]

Back in the day, Faldo was the best known player for using all shot shapes.  Although, I had an interesting conversation with Lanny Wadkins once, and his answer was that he used all the shots when he was playing well, and went back to his typical draw when not as confident.

Jeff:


I'm not at all surprised by Lanny Wadkins' revelation.  My impression is that the majority of players only go against their natural shot shape when they are playing their absolute best, and even then, they seldom go against type under pressure, when they are in the final group on TV.  It's really a shame because most of them are really exciting shotmakers, but unfortunately what's most exciting to watch is not what maximizes their annual earnings.  That's really why I like match play so much:  hardly anyone plays so conservatively in a match.


Otherwise, I tend not to think so much about the elite player when we are building a hole.  I figure those guys have all the tools, and it's their job to sort out the best way to play the hole, no matter what I do.  My thoughts are always with the 10- or 20-handicapper and making sure they have SOME option, and then especially looking at recovery play around the green and where it ought to be easier or harder.  Most of my greens contours are actually about recovery play.

[Carl Rogers]

Greg's description of Hole 10 at LCC also allows golfers with a range of skills a way to play the hole in their own way and avoiding embarrassing high number.  Though as Brent says it may take a round or three to figure that out.