[Tim Gallant]

Mark/Tim


Carnoustie is often cited as being penal but I'm not sure it is. It's certainly tough in relation to par but I think that is a different thing all together. Certainly the bunkers are generally as penal as you will get and are nearly always a 1 shot penalty for at least the fairway bunkers.

NOOOOOO! Difficult is not penal! A penal hazard is one positioned to punish any failure to execute the called-for shot. Where's that famous JH Taylor hole sketch with hazards all over the place. THAT is penal!

Thanks Niall and Adam - I agree that the two are not synonyms.


Regarding Carnoustie, can you provide examples of how it is not a penal course? When I describe the Championship course, I always say that it punishes any shot that isn't perfect, and I believe that is the case. A good example is 6 - yes there is an option of whether to lay short of the fairway bunkers, try to carry them or thread the alley, but in each case you are still left with a daunting layup / 'go for it' scenario. There is still OB, a burn and deep greenside bunkers to contend with. The strategy overall is more about 'where not to miss' and perfect execution than about weighing up risk/reward percentages? Is this not what the penal design is more about?

[Sean_A]

I think about half the holes at Carnoustie are of the penal school.  If Oakland Hills is example of this type, then so must Carnoustie be penal in nature.


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

I thought Chambers Bay was fairly Penal in many of the shot requirements it asked of a higher handicapper.  Many of the bunkers were very penal in terms of the level of difficulty of getting out of them.
 
But I enjoyed the course very much despite getting beat up by it.

[Mark Pearce]

Are we all agreed that difficult does not equal penal?

I would also suggest (and I think this is what Tim is saying in regards to Carnoustie) that choice does not equal strategy, though choice may be a requirement of strategic design.

[Niall C]

Tim


With regards Carnoustie, I suppose the question you have to ask yourself is can you avoid the trouble without taking it on ? As you say the fairway bunkers generally provide a bottleneck just about where you want your drive but as you say you can lay up or if a big hitter go over, or try and squeeze past - that to me is strategy. Penal would be if the bunkers carried on all the way up the side of the fairways which I think is Mikes argument regarding Muirfield although for me it depends on what width the playing corridor is. I don't consider 45-50 yards with the occasional bottleneck as being penal but clearly others do.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Penal architecture may simply be two bunkers pinching the fairway at the drive zone or one bunker which must be carried.  I don't know where you got the idea that fairways must be lined with bunkers to be penal. Carnoustie isn't loaded with the pinching are carry bunkers, but when the water holes are added in (with no mention of rough!) I think one has to consider that the nature of the design is penal.  If we add in rough as a modern day hazard, then the boat sails quite truly down the penal path.  The question is though, can folks still enjoy the course?  I think if I caught Carnoustie on calm day with the rough down it would be fun.  I really enjoy the funneling bunkers.  There is something very cool about knowing a ball will end up in a bunker when it is bobbling along some 40 yards shy of the sand. 


Ciao

[Doug Siebert]

Penal architecture may simply be two bunkers pinching the fairway at the drive zone or one bunker which must be carried.

I disagree with that definition.  That would be a challenging or difficult hole, but not penal.  To me a penal hole is one where a misplayed shot leaves you unable to recover.  i.e. lost ball, OB, unplayable, in the water, in thick trees where even if you find you will be lucky to play it out sideways.  A hole with bunkers lining both sides of the fairway may be stupid, but it isn't penal so long as they aren't pot bunkers.  A decent player can advance the ball out of a fairway bunker a good distance.  Maybe not all the way to the green but par is still definitely within reach.

[Tim Gallant]

Mark - exactly, I maybe said this in the wrong way, but I agree that choice doesn't always equal strategic design, but that choice is a requirement for strategic design.


Niall, I think Sean's post sums up my feelings on Carnoustie as a penal design, but do see how it can be open to interpretation as there is choice.


Sean, that part about it being cool to watch a ball hone in on a bunker from 40 yards out...you sir have a better head on your shoulders than I! I am normally yelling at the ball like Jordan Speith at that point...'Oh, don't go there!'.

[Jud_T]

The only Championship courses I've played that I've really enjoyed and would look forward to going back to are Carnoustie and Olympia Fields North, and I suspect the reason is that they are not, in fact, truly penal and one can play around or short of the hazards if one is willing to accept not getting on in reg on every hole and playing within one's abilities and accepting that bogey is in fact a good score on some holes for some of us. 

[Kalen Braley]

So I'm seeing a lot of comments along the lines of "penal is not equal to difficult"....
 
But what I'm missing is examples of where something is penal as opposed to where something is merely only difficult.
 
I'm genuinely interested in specific examples to show the difference.  Because as I see it, I don't see how something is penal, and not also difficult at the same time.

[Mark Pearce]

Kalen, penal may always be difficult without difficult always being penal.

[Paul Gray]

Penal architecture may simply be two bunkers pinching the fairway at the drive zone or one bunker which must be carried.

I disagree with that definition.  That would be a challenging or difficult hole, but not penal.  To me a penal hole is one where a misplayed shot leaves you unable to recover.  i.e. lost ball, OB, unplayable, in the water, in thick trees where even if you find you will be lucky to play it out sideways.  A hole with bunkers lining both sides of the fairway may be stupid, but it isn't penal so long as they aren't pot bunkers.  A decent player can advance the ball out of a fairway bunker a good distance.  Maybe not all the way to the green but par is still definitely within reach.

Doug,


With respect, that's flat wrong. You are confusing a penal hazard with penal design. There is no "to me" about it. The penal school is a clearly definable design paradigm which is what it is.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, penal may always be difficult without difficult always being penal.

Mark,
 
When I think of the word penal, I think punishment and penalties, (and the dictionary says same).
 
How is this not difficult in this context?  A difficult course will lead to punishment in the form of actual and mental penalties.
 
Once again, I think specific examples are needed here to differentiate between how something can be penal, but not difficult, or visa versa, because I don't see them as mutually exclusive in any way or form.  They go hand in hand, especially on the golf course.

[Sean_A]

Penal architecture may simply be two bunkers pinching the fairway at the drive zone or one bunker which must be carried.

I disagree with that definition.  That would be a challenging or difficult hole, but not penal.  To me a penal hole is one where a misplayed shot leaves you unable to recover.  i.e. lost ball, OB, unplayable, in the water, in thick trees where even if you find you will be lucky to play it out sideways.  A hole with bunkers lining both sides of the fairway may be stupid, but it isn't penal so long as they aren't pot bunkers.  A decent player can advance the ball out of a fairway bunker a good distance.  Maybe not all the way to the green but par is still definitely within reach.

Doug


You are confusing penal architecture with the penalty for missing a shot.  They are separate issues.  Penal architecture is about limited choices, not about the actual penalty.  For instance, if a pair of bunkers pinches the fairway the player must play through the gap or carry the bunkers if he is to follow the short grass. Carrying the hazard isn't really a stand alone option because in theory that option is available no matter where a hazard is placed.  So that really means the only real option is to thread a needle.  More strategically placed hazards would allow for more options.  That said, I place no inherent value on strategic vs penal.  All types and placements of hazards are good if variety and balance is of any value. 


Ciao

[Terry Lavin]

Oakmont and Butler National.

[PCCraig]

Well, given that Jason Thurman educated me after the Midwest Mashie to the thought that my home course ( Town & Country in St. Paul ) is of the "Penal" school, I'll pick that as one that I enjoy!  


It's certainly a course where if you are striking and putting the ball well you can post a very good score. That's primarily due to it's ~6,500 yard length, 5 par 3's and 5 par-5's. However if you are slightly off on many holes, you can collect a big number quickly by being out of place. 

[Mark Pearce]

Kalen, penal may always be difficult without difficult always being penal.

Mark,
 
When I think of the word penal, I think punishment and penalties, (and the dictionary says same).
 
How is this not difficult in this context?  A difficult course will lead to punishment in the form of actual and mental penalties.
 
Once again, I think specific examples are needed here to differentiate between how something can be penal, but not difficult, or visa versa, because I don't see them as mutually exclusive in any way or form.  They go hand in hand, especially on the golf course.

Kalen,

I think the "penal" style of architecture is a style that asks specific questions of the golfer and punishes failure to achieve the shot demanded.  It does not offer strategic choice.  The 17th at TPC Sawgrass is an example of a penal hole.  It asks the golfer to play a specific shot and punishes failure severely.  Make it 120 yards and make the green bigger and flat and it would be an easy hole.  It would also still be penal.  There are, I agree, few easy but penal courses but such a thing is not impossible.  Similarly, there is no reason why a very strategic course cannot be difficult.  I imagine RMW is an example of that.

[Adam Lawrence]

Kalen, penal may always be difficult without difficult always being penal.

Mark,
 
When I think of the word penal, I think punishment and penalties, (and the dictionary says same).
 
How is this not difficult in this context?  A difficult course will lead to punishment in the form of actual and mental penalties.
 
Once again, I think specific examples are needed here to differentiate between how something can be penal, but not difficult, or visa versa, because I don't see them as mutually exclusive in any way or form.  They go hand in hand, especially on the golf course.

Kalen,

I think the "penal" style of architecture is a style that asks specific questions of the golfer and punishes failure to achieve the shot demanded.  It does not offer strategic choice.  The 17th at TPC Sawgrass is an example of a penal hole.  It asks the golfer to play a specific shot and punishes failure severely.  Make it 120 yards and make the green bigger and flat and it would be an easy hole.  It would also still be penal.  There are, I agree, few easy but penal courses but such a thing is not impossible.  Similarly, there is no reason why a very strategic course cannot be difficult.  I imagine RMW is an example of that.

Quite correct. A bunker positioned to punish a particular mistake -- say a top shot bunker -- is penal by virtue of its positioning, not by virtue of its depth/difficulty. It could be shallow and easy, it would still be penal.


By contrast the Road Hole bunker is deep and difficult, but by way of its positioning it creates the strategy of the hole. It is not penal.

[Niall C]

The only Championship courses I've played that I've really enjoyed and would look forward to going back to are Carnoustie and Olympia Fields North, and I suspect the reason is that they are not, in fact, truly penal and one can play around or short of the hazards if one is willing to accept not getting on in reg on every hole and playing within one's abilities and accepting that bogey is in fact a good score on some holes for some of us.

Jud


I think you have it bang on. You can go round the hazards at Carnoustie or you can lay up. That's not penal, if anything it is strategic. I think Sean and Paul have got it wrong in that respect.


Niall

[Niall C]

Niall, I think Sean's post sums up my feelings on Carnoustie as a penal design, but do see how it can be open to interpretation as there is choice.

Tim


There's no doubting that the fairway bunkers at Carnoustie are probably as tough as you will find on a links and that basically they are at least a one shot penalty. The degree of penalty however doesn't really make the hole any less penal or strategic depending on what it is. The point is whether you are forced to take it on or not.


Niall

[Niall C]

Penal architecture may simply be two bunkers pinching the fairway at the drive zone or one bunker which must be carried.  I don't know where you got the idea that fairways must be lined with bunkers to be penal. Carnoustie isn't loaded with the pinching are carry bunkers, but when the water holes are added in (with no mention of rough!) I think one has to consider that the nature of the design is penal.  If we add in rough as a modern day hazard, then the boat sails quite truly down the penal path.  The question is though, can folks still enjoy the course?  I think if I caught Carnoustie on calm day with the rough down it would be fun.  I really enjoy the funneling bunkers.  There is something very cool about knowing a ball will end up in a bunker when it is bobbling along some 40 yards shy of the sand. 


Ciao

Sean


I think you are mixing up design and set up which are two different things as seen at Renaissance.


With regards Carnoustie, ever since the 1999 Open it has had a brutal rep about its rough which I believe is unjustified. It don't think it was as bad in 99 as made out with a lot of it being the wispy thin stuff which is now a favourite of many links. Compared to other Open set ups I've seen it certainly wasn't any worse.


However that is championship golf. I think to have a reasonable conversation here you need to judge it on every day play and from the half dozen times I've played it, no way could it be considered to have penal set up, not unless your one of those Castle Stuart 90 yard wide fairway type fashionistas 

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall


No, regardless of the rough, I think Carnoustie can fairly be called of the penal school because about half its holes offer very few options either due to bunkers or water.  Again, I don't want you to think I associate "penal" with poor architecture.  However, penal is heavily associated with championship golf....in the past 30 or so years, more for narrow fairways than anything else...which imo is the same thing (or worse because the rough is prevalent on all holes) as hazards limiting options.  Once again, this is why I ask what is the minimal width of fairways which will offer a player choices?  You seem to lean toward 30 yards and I am much more toward 50 yards.  If hazards are to have the desired effect, then there must be width or the real hazard for most places is simply rough.  Muirfield may as well remove 125 of its 150 bunkers if it wants to keep savage rough 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Muirfield may as well remove 125 of its 150 bunkers if it wants to keep savage rough

Nonsense.  Muirfield has a lot of bunkers, for sure, but you have to miss them by a good distance to be in "savage" rough.  The rough immediately by or just past most of the bunkers is, in fact, very reasonable indeed (in that you'll find your ball and be able to play it if you're within 5/10 yards of most bunkers.

[Niall C]

Sean


I think we are in agreement on approx playing corridors provided of course you take in the semi into that. I'm not fussed how much is fairway and how much semi as long as it's varied. I do think that in so much as semi provides a different texture as well as different shot options, and therefore variety, then I think that's valid.


I'm not sure I agree with you though with regards your comments on bunkering and water with regards to Carnoustie. The water mainly comes into play at the 17th and 18th. The water at 1st and 2nd (and 18th drive) only presents a limited hinderance in that its a (very) short carry off the tee and therefore is no different than the gunge you regularly get in front of tees including many strategic courses. Having a limited carry off the normal tee isn't what I would call penal.


At the 17th, the burn provides a wonderful diagonal hazard not once but twice while the burn in front of the 18th provides a fantastic risk reward for anyone going for it in two. For those laying up its far enough back from the green so as to be no real hinderance to anyone playing from say 100 yards out. Compare that to the burn at the 1st at TOC which is hard up against the green.


Bunkering - well let me point you to the 6th which I tend to think of as Simpsons homage to the 4th at Woking.


Niall   

[Tim Gallant]

Sean


I think we are in agreement on approx playing corridors provided of course you take in the semi into that. I'm not fussed how much is fairway and how much semi as long as it's varied. I do think that in so much as semi provides a different texture as well as different shot options, and therefore variety, then I think that's valid.


I'm not sure I agree with you though with regards your comments on bunkering and water with regards to Carnoustie. The water mainly comes into play at the 17th and 18th. The water at 1st and 2nd (and 18th drive) only presents a limited hinderance in that its a (very) short carry off the tee and therefore is no different than the gunge you regularly get in front of tees including many strategic courses. Having a limited carry off the normal tee isn't what I would call penal.


At the 17th, the burn provides a wonderful diagonal hazard not once but twice while the burn in front of the 18th provides a fantastic risk reward for anyone going for it in two. For those laying up its far enough back from the green so as to be no real hinderance to anyone playing from say 100 yards out. Compare that to the burn at the 1st at TOC which is hard up against the green.


Bunkering - well let me point you to the 6th which I tend to think of as Simpsons homage to the 4th at Woking.


Niall

I think you are forgetting the water at 3, 5, 6, and 10 as well.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()