Question About Design Characteristic of Streamsong Blue #7

[Jason Thurman]

Joe, how do you reconcile your premise of Streamsong Blue's design "maximizing volatility" with the fact that all three balls in the photo in the original post came to rest in a 9 square inch area?

[Mark Fedeli]

Ok, so is the consensus that it’s somehow a bad thing that Sean’s and his friends’ balls got twisted?

Because I don’t see the argument that it is. So all their shots ended up in the same place? So what? Maybe it is, but no one has actually performed the argument. Am I right to think that there’s a sentiment that thinks this is “unfair?” Why? And I don’t mean “there isn’t any reason” but instead “I would like to see those reasons spelled out.”

Anyway, thanks to BCrosby for directing my attention towards his interesting pieces on MacKenzie/Crane discussion. It’s been interesting.

Thanks,

Joe

Joe, despite having some very well-struck shots of my own fall victim to the left side, I tend to agree with you. However, I would make one major change and remove the right bunker and create more short grass on that side of the green. It can be a long, tough carry over the water, so the punishment awaiting shots too far left on the green would be less severe if you could play well out to the right and really run some balls off that slope. That would be a blast!

This green actually reminds me quite a bit of the green on the 2nd at Cabot Cliffs, which has incredibly severe false fronts and any shots from behind the pin are precarious. As I mentioned in Pat's recent thread about that hole, I loved it to death, but nearly everyone in my group thought it was silly and completely unfair. Both of these wonderful holes seem to straddle the intersection of a couple different philosophies of design.

[Joe Lane]

Hi Jason,


I think your question, although clever, comes from a misconception of what “volatile,” or randomness, really means. Here is an excerpt from an article on what true randomness is,


When someone is imagining coin flips, however, they almost never imagine a run of five straight heads or tails. This is because after two or three heads our brains tend to think, 'OK, time for a tails now.' Our brains are implementing an order, a 'coin memory', whereas in fact true randomness has no memory of what came before.[/size]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1334712/Humans-concept-randomness-hard-understand.html#ixzz3z4EbG8Jo
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


So, in fact, it could easily be argued that your implied argument that three balls coming to rest in the same place betrays design actually merely demonstrates your ignorance of what actual randomness looks like.


Now, is that what’s going on here? No—but it does demonstrate that there’s something not quite right about your argument. That, I suspect, is this: you are still in thrall to the notion of proportionality. When you’ve sorted out what your actual question is, please come back to discuss.


Hope that helps!


Thanks,


Joe

[Jason Thurman]

Joe, I have no implied argument. I'm willing to consider your premise if you can defend it against the smallest shred of skepticism.


I will note, however, that a coin toss is a 50/50 proposition while the range of possibilities for where a golf ball can end up after a swing is literally infinite. 5 heads in a row on coin tosses is random. Hell, 20 heads in a row is random. That one in ten million chance is much more likely than three straight golf swings from three different players resulting in lies that leave all three balls practically touching each other. A result like that is not random at all, and your comparison of the two demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the probability of such a result.

[Joe Lane]

Hi Jason,


Well, then I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m saying. My example was meant to say that randomness is indeed just that: random. Hence, we can’t necessarily exclude what looks like “miraculous” results just because they don’t fit our expectations of what randomness is. You may wish to consult works on probability for more information on this point.


Next, I entirely agree with you that the area near 7 does in fact funnel balls to a particular area. But my example of randomness is meant to show you that it is not that reality is the problem, it is instead your expectations about reality that are the problem. This is what Mr. Doak is trying to get at with the notion of the “paradox of proportionality.” You are expecting that, from input X, Y should result, but Mr. Doak is trying to teach you that this expectation is merely that—not something real of itself.


I am sorry if you have trouble with the concept. It has taken me quite some time to absorb myself, so I am quite sympathetic to you as you try to work through it. I am myself skeptical about the idea—I think there are dangers to the idea that don’t even have much to do with golf—but it avails nothing to disagree with something you don’t understand. If there is anything I can explain that might help, please let me know.


Thanks!


Joe

[Charlie_Bell]

Joe,


In response to your 11:30 comment, I'd say that my concern is not that the results were unfair but that they were boring.


Now, I've never played Streamsong, and we don't know how similar the three shots happened to be in trajectory and landing point.  But it seems that the green was somehow funneling all three balls not only into an unplayable lie but also into the exact same place.  Unless all three shots were were identical, I'd simply wonder how much fun that would be.  I would much prefer to play a set-up where three different shots -- presumably with slightly different trajectories, spins, and landing points -- would yield at least slightly different results.

[Jason Thurman]

Joe, understanding probability is a huge part of my career. You're drawing a lot of assumptions about what I know and don't know based on two fairly innocuous posts.


It is indeed possible that the photo in the original post was the result of randomness. I've only asserted that the odds of it being random are worse than 1 in ten million. I'm inclined to think there are more likely explanations. I would tend to agree with Charlie Bell's suggestion that the result is less random than boring, though again, I'll consider your premise if you can defend it against even a shred of skepticism.


So far you haven't. I understand exactly what you're saying. I probably understand it better than you do, since you apparently believe you're offering meaningful food for thought with the power to change the way I and others think. I'm a shit salesman myself though, so now that I've satisfied my own curiosity about your supply, I won't infringe on your attempts to sell your own anymore. Carry on.

[Joe Lane]

Well, I guess you can lead a horse to water, right?


Yes, of course it’s likely that something is funneling the golf balls to that spot: the question is, why is that bad? The baseline assumption for some seems to be that this is self-evidently a bad result, whereas it is my contention that this is not self-evident. Charlie at least is making an argument: he says that it is boring. That is an actual claim, and a valid one. Jason however is not making a claim, or at least hasn’t said what it is. The point of the whole discussion isn’t about the balls going to one place or another—it’s about why it matters. Charlie has said because it’s boring—that’s at least an answer. What’s yours, Jason?

[BHoover]

With all due respect, what the hell are you all talking about?

Actually, the more I think about it, I don't want to know.

[Joe Lane]

Welcome Brian,

We are trying to think about what makes a good golf course. The basic positions seem to be:


1. That everything should be predictable. (Crane/Trent Jones)
2. That everything should be less predictable. (MacKenzie/Doak)


So far it seems as though the “predictable” side is at least two up, though there’s been a charge of late from the “unpredictable” team captain himself late in the back nine, with at least a couple to go. The real trouble, of course, is that the “predictable” side seems hardly aware that they are even playing.


Joe

[Sean_A]

Because I don’t see the argument that it is. So all their shots ended up in the same place? So what? Maybe it is, but no one has actually performed the argument. Am I right to think that there’s a sentiment that thinks this is “unfair?” Why? And I don’t mean “there isn’t any reason” but instead “I would like to see those reasons spelled out.”


Joe

Joe


The fact that three balls ended up in the same area isn't in the least bothersome to me and I wouldn't say the situation is unfair, because it is fair.  I would say two strands of design came together (unintentionally?) to perhaps complete an unsatisfactory result.  Unless a green is huge, I don't understand the concept of mixing f&f with target golf, especially when water is in play, the length of the hole dictates that many shots will come in flat and the course is for handicap players.  Its quite a penal concept.  Not that I am against penal design, but perhaps it should be tempered somewhat. 

Ciao

[BHoover]

Unpredictable is preferable.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Welcome Brian,

We are trying to think about what makes a good golf course. The basic positions seem to be:


1. That everything should be predictable. (Crane/Trent Jones)
2. That everything should be less predictable. (MacKenzie/Doak)


So far it seems as though the “predictable” side is at least two up, though there’s been a charge of late from the “unpredictable” team captain himself late in the back nine, with at least a couple to go. The real trouble, of course, is that the “predictable” side seems hardly aware that they are even playing.


Joe

Two problems with that idea....the word "everything" being one.  The second is Brian's statement, which given human nature should be amended to "Unpredictable is preferable.....for the other guy."

My mentors (and thus me to at least some degree) always allowed for some of that unpredictability or unfairness, but figured if a golfer encountered it once or twice a round, it was okay.  At 4-5 times a round, they start to complain.  And usually, as in this and most courses case, the random unfairness can happen by design accident, mish mash of design intent and maintenance practice, etc.  One thing to note, if that area was turfed, the balls would still collect, and the divot problem would be a maintenance mess, so architects try (and sometimes fail) to avoid collection areas.  Given the constant of gravity, you would think we could avoid those, but we all miss sometimes.

Most architects design so shots that hit the green hold the green. Tom does allow a few per course where this can happen.  I have told the story, always adding that I tried to get my son out to Rawls to practice and learn the course, but in a HS state competition, on the 3rd, he hits it to 2 feet from the pin (in a howling wind) which ended up rolling off the green, down a swale and 30 yards and 20 feet below the pin, when hitting the middle of the green.  He was not pleased, and yes, many question if hitting the middle of the green in a west Texas wind and getting that kind of result is "fair." Or, good design.

What can you say.....if you have played Tom's courses, you know that some love the less predictable, and others walk away feeling Doak greens treat them like a baby treats a diaper......it may or may not be good or great design, depending on perspective, but there is no doubt its what made him famous.

[Tom_Doak]

Now, I've never played Streamsong, and we don't know how similar the three shots happened to be in trajectory and landing point.  But it seems that the green was somehow funneling all three balls not only into an unplayable lie but also into the exact same place.  Unless all three shots were were identical, I'd simply wonder how much fun that would be.  I would much prefer to play a set-up where three different shots -- presumably with slightly different trajectories, spins, and landing points -- would yield at least slightly different results.

Charlie:


Though I'm not happy with the way the hole is playing, the "test" that you and Jason Thurman are trying to apply doesn't really make sense in this case.  It's a demanding hole; the green sits high above the water.  Once the ball goes over the back of the green there are only three places for it to wind up ... in the hazard, just short of the hazard, or somewhere on the bank [if the grass is really shaggy].  The situation doesn't lend itself to the sort of dispersion that other holes do.


I don't build a lot of holes like that, but surely it is okay to build one occasionally, isn't it?  If not, then doesn't your criticism apply to six holes on every Pete Dye course or Jack Nicklaus course, with water adjacent to the greens?  It doesn't really matter where exactly the ball winds up in a water hazard, since all positions yield the same penalty.

[Tom_Doak]

What can you say.....if you have played Tom's courses, you know that some love the less predictable, and others walk away feeling Doak greens treat them like a baby treats a diaper......it may or may not be good or great design, depending on perspective, but there is no doubt its what made him famous.

Jeff:


No, what made me famous is calling bullshit on other architects for building boring golf courses. 


Also, somewhere in your story the complaint morphed from your son hitting the ball "2 feet from the pin" to being unfairly treated for hitting "the middle of the green".  I think your analogy is assigning the "baby" to the wrong party.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

As it happened, the pin was right behind the little knob in the green tier, near the middle, which made it really a rejection point.  All two tier greens have that potential to reject shots far beyond their "proportional value" and I really do prefer tiers the way this one is designed, with some horizontal and vertical wobble to disguise it a bit compared to a tier that sort of goes straight across the green.

My point still stands, when such a rejection happens to someone else, its usually great design, or at least quirk.  When it happens to you, its the greatest tragedy of all time.  He accepted it...his coach kind of went nuts.  But, as I said, he was district champ three years running but never made it out of regionals at Rawls. 

Who do I blame? Mostly his then girlfriend, who made him not want to travel when he should have.......

[Jeff_Brauer]

The other thing I consider on the topic of false fronts, greens that reject, etc., is I do think older courses tend to get a bit more of a pass on this, just as they do for other quirk.

One year at ASGCA we played La Cumbre, and the 9th green is in front of the clubhouse. All who had finished had a good time watching oncoming players deal with the false front there, either in short approach shots rolling back down the fairway, or putts from above the hole sliding by and going 30 yards down the fairway.  Seems to have been designed for 19th hole enjoyment!

But, a good example of doing a few of those per course, and it sure not being a detriment.  Pinehurst No. 2, Hole 5 is another example which has become sort of legendary as a hole where you can de-green a putt.  So, nothing wrong with designers picking a hole for a false front, etc.  They just have to be dead before they stop hearing about it from golfers, LOL.

[Jason Thurman]

Tom, don't mistake my trolling of Joe for my feelings on the hole itself. My posts in this thread have been more about challenging the words he's putting in your mouth and his judgment of what I do and don't understand than any real thoughts I have about the hole.


Here's what I really think:


* The hole is unusually penal compared to most of your holes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. An occasional hole that demands a good shot is just fine by me (which should be obvious, given where I'm working to take the Midwest Mashie this year), especially when the setting is one that practically begs for a hole.
* The shots that Sean and his buddies hit weren't quite as well-played as he made them out to be in his original post. If his diagram a few posts later is to be believed, they landed more on the left edge of the green than the left third. I have no problem with a shot like that being repelled, particularly on a hole where bouncing it in from the right is the smarter play.
* I would prefer for the shots not to all end up in the exact same spot, as I prefer more varied outcomes when it comes to greenside recoveries. I'd also prefer for them not to end up unplayable (though I'm unsure why they were based on the photos, and maybe Sean could explain further). It sounds like this isn't your design intent though, and more of a maintenance function.


I don't think it's "unfair" or anything like that. I do think the penalty might be a bit harsh on a hole that already requires a fairly substantial forced carry, but again, I don't necessarily mind that sort of thing once or twice in the contest of 18 holes. Most of my favorite par 3s are holes that offer an adequate margin of error, but where the target isn't necessarily where you'd think. From what I've seen, this one fits the bill albeit with fairly severe outcomes for a shot outside the margin.

[Bill_McBride]

The other thing I consider on the topic of false fronts, greens that reject, etc., is I do think older courses tend to get a bit more of a pass on this, just as they do for other quirk.

One year at ASGCA we played La Cumbre, and the 9th green is in front of the clubhouse. All who had finished had a good time watching oncoming players deal with the false front there, either in short approach shots rolling back down the fairway, or putts from above the hole sliding by and going 30 yards down the fairway.  Seems to have been designed for 19th hole enjoyment!

Great observation, Jeff.  The nines were reversed many years ago at La Cumbre, so that was the 18th hole when George Thomas originally laid out the course!   I've played there a lot, he ninth green is indeed a terror.

[BCowan]

The other thing I consider on the topic of false fronts, greens that reject, etc., is I do think older courses tend to get a bit more of a pass on this, just as they do for other quirk.

One year at ASGCA we played La Cumbre, and the 9th green is in front of the clubhouse. All who had finished had a good time watching oncoming players deal with the false front there, either in short approach shots rolling back down the fairway, or putts from above the hole sliding by and going 30 yards down the fairway.  Seems to have been designed for 19th hole enjoyment!

But, a good example of doing a few of those per course, and it sure not being a detriment.  Pinehurst No. 2, Hole 5 is another example which has become sort of legendary as a hole where you can de-green a putt.  So, nothing wrong with designers picking a hole for a false front, etc.  They just have to be dead before they stop hearing about it from golfers, LOL.

Jeff,

   Everything you described is due to ''Green Speeds Arms Race''.  Do we want interesting greens or flat greens running at 12+.  Fairway HOC is getting out of control too.  It boils down to taste.  As for False fronts, maint of grass short of the green has to be firm in order for false front to work well.  Heaven forbid we ask a player to take 2 more clubs and hit short of the false front and run it up.  The Hell with being a shot-maker. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

Agreed. On many occasions I have used a TOC style valley of sin type green.  Often asked "What's up with that?" 

I ask if the front right or left was guarded with a sand bunker, wouldn't it really be the same hole?  Usual answer: "That's not a recovery shot I practice."

I have received phone calls or emails from local golfers saying such things like "When the pin is near the front of Green X, I can't hold it near."  Yeah, so play short and bounce it up.

One of the funniest things is hearing Jack Nicklaus describe that he likes two tier greens on longer downwind par 4 holes, and he uses a little less spin to run the ball up the tier as the highest percentage shot.  Once, in a presentation I mentioned that as the reasoning behind such a hole and still got an argument. I guess Jack Nicklaus suggesting even using a slightly different shot to max out chances of getting to the pin isn't an authoritative enough reason for some golfers not to standardize.

In general, yes, the trend has been to standardization of shots over time, due to standardized clubs, all meant to swing the same way.  And, again, the bigger picture (same as in the target thread) does design accommodate the modern mindset or try to force players into an older way of thinking?  I know what the prevailing mindset here is, but can also see that most golfers really don't like it, or being forced into it.   So, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or, just is what it is?

Or to bring it back to discussion of this hole, is it a good or bad thing on this hole?  (Hate to critique others work, but it seems to be fair game.....)

You have a forced carry over water at 175-200 yards.  I don't have measurements, but it seems a moderate size green for that length shot, and a third of the green seems non receptive, with an internal swale directing balls off left, and what appears to be a tier with pretty steep slopes above as well.  I know from a thread here long ago that any ball coming off that top tier takes at least 14 feet to stop, and the area between the bottom of that tier and the collector swale isn't a lot more than that from the photos.

It's pretty difficult shot overall based on length and green severity alone, not to mention surrounding hazards.  Should architecture create a challenge where just hitting the green is doable by the metrics of most golfers, and that alone allows a possible birdie putt beyond many if not most golfers?  Or it is okay to force hitting to a target area within the green that gives the possible birdie or easier two putt?

Too difficult?  Interesting or "unfair?"  Obviously, room for all opinions over 15K US golf courses, even based on the same set of "facts" about the physical nature of the hole.  (I realize I am discussing theory without having played the hole)

Well, that would vary from course to course, golfer to golfer and designer to designer.  If, as portrayed here, a small percentage of balls end up off the green,  then probably not.  It seems from the Owners POV that it draws more golfers than it drives away, since by all accounts the resort is a success and building a third course.  That is probably the ultimate architectural judgment. The Owner might track repeat rounds of play on the multiple courses over time to gauge how popular it is with customers.

Those are the kinds of questions most architects have asked and answered different ways.  Long live the differences of opinion, no? 

[BCowan]

And, again, the bigger picture (same as in the target thread) does design accommodate the modern mindset or try to force players into an older way of thinking?  I know what the prevailing mindset here is, but can also see that most golfers really don't like it, or being forced into it.

Jeff,

   This really is what it boils down to.  It reminds me of a pub gathering we had a few months ago. Tony brought in a US Open magazine from the 85 US Open at Oakland Hills (prob 100-150 pages).  Chris pointed out how detailed the advertisements were.  There were 2-3 paragraphs on many of them explaining in detail about the product.  Now it is just a few key words and photos.  So when we talk about educating players on what they are missing out on, that seems like a very uphill climb.  I think the site has to be a 9 or a 10 in order to get people to open up their mind.  It doesn't help with professional golf. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

Yes, USA Today Syndrome has taken over.  I believe its a scientific fact that our attention spans are shorter now than even 20 years ago.  I also think (as shown by the current political process) and our tendency to listen to sound bite news from channels that seem to favor our POV) that we more inclined to throw out pithy answers confirming our beliefs than to seek any sort of change of mind. 

So, yes, its an uphill battle, and most golf operators, tend to gravitate to the easier to understand designs as the safe way to profit.  But, in some ways, safe is death, so there is always a balance.  I am not really arguing whether Streamsong 7 is good or bad, I am merely trying  to present the overall industry view, at least as I see it for the benefit of posters.

[Tom_Doak]

My point still stands, when such a rejection happens to someone else, its usually great design, or at least quirk.  When it happens to you, its the greatest tragedy of all time.  He accepted it...his coach kind of went nuts.  But, as I said, he was district champ three years running but never made it out of regionals at Rawls. 

Who do I blame? Mostly his then girlfriend, who made him not want to travel when he should have.......

Really?  Blaming the girlfriend?


You should have just told him he was reacting the same way Bobby Jones did, the first time he saw The Old Course.  And, maybe, hinted that Jones became great once he learned to accept the challenges of the course and play around them.  But of course he didn't do so until after he turned 21.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Just trying to be cheeky.

Regarding my son, and this whole discussion, I recently used the phrase, "He would rather play Scottsdale than Scotland" and I am surrounded by players who feel the same way.  They really like all that modern architecture has to offer, and can't see traveling thousands of miles for a bunch of bad bounces.