Strategic perfection (or near-perfection)?

[Tim Gavrich]

I played this hole yesterday, and I believe, at least tee to green, it's a perfect golf hole. It's nothing new - we've all played a number of holes like this - but I was blown away by how well and how simply the architect(s) of this one, in particular, executed the simple risk-reward proposition. To wit:


- The fairway bunker is perfectly placed off the tee (carries from the backs of the tee boxes: 255/225/200/170/145), and the tees are spaced such that pretty much any player has the opportunity to try and take on the bunker in order to gain a favorable approach angle.


- The green (and attendant greenside bunker) is visible from the tee (despite my poor-quality, into-the sun photo) and is angled perfectly to create a continuum of risk where variations in the hole location dictate different approaches to strategy off the tee one day to the next.


- There is ample width, not just off the tee but around the green, so that the weaker player can make a par or easy bogey by tacking around/hitting a not-so-great shot or two. Many holes like this have fairways that are a lot narrower, and so the player feels more pressure to just make a great swing off the tee than actually choose one of a few very different lines.


Despite it being "perfect," it's obviously not the most memorable or fun hole I've ever played. But is there a simpler - and, perhaps more importantly, easier in its virtues to explain to someone who hasn't before thought much about strategic design - embodiment of good golf course architecture?










Certainly a course where every par 4 was of this sort would be tedious, but this is something so elemental that there are thousands of golf courses out there missing this sort of hole that would be made better by its introduction.


What other holes/types of holes would you consider "perfect"?

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:


Twenty years ago I'd probably have agreed with you about this hole.  Today, I find it two-dimensional.

[/size][size=78%]The design is based on the idea that carrying hazards is the be-all, end-all.  The guy who can carry the fairway bunker from his chosen tee is advantaged; and if he doesn't, he's still okay if he's strong enough to carry the hazard in front of the green.[/size]
[/size]
Meanwhile, the player who can't make the first carry can't make the second, either.[/size][size=78%]  [/size]


It's not all bad.  One can maybe squeeze close to the bunker off the tee and get a slice of the green with his second, if both shots are controlled perfectly.  That's probably the line you should have drawn for the green one.


The best explanation I've ever read about strategic design came from Bobby Jones, writing about Augusta:


""There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one.  One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment on a bad shot, to place its perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble which will demand the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering.  The other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the first.  The reward may be of any nature, but it is more commonly one of four -- a better view of the green, an easier angle from which to attack a slope, an open approach past guarding hazards, or even a better run to the tee shot itself."


The hole you've illustrated covers one of these four rewards.  For me, the best holes present different problems for the tee shot and the second shot.

[John_Cullum]

I wonder how many can guess the course, or the architect.

[Sean_A]

Yes, I get that the hole isn't perfect, but perfect shouldn't be the standard for design...well at least I don't think so.  As its type, the only thing I might suggest is two-fold.  If one carries the bunker perhaps he should be required to do so with the correct shape shot (ie the land beyond the bunker moves gently right and the subtlety is heightened in the summer).  Second, perhaps raise the fairway bunker lip so if someone decides to lay-up on that line, the view of the green/flag is obscured or blind.


Ciao