GCA is not about good shots. It's about bad shots.

[BCrosby]

The title of this thread is a paraphrase of the quotation on Geoff S.'s blog today by Ben Hogan in which Hogan says:

"Golf is not a game of good shots. It's a game of bad shots. BEN HOGAN"

Isn't that equally true of golf architecture? Day in, day out, the best part of a good course is how it treats missed shots, not good shots. No?

Bob 

[John Connolly]

The good courses simply discriminate between the two.

[Joe Hancock]

Aside from inability to produce a good shot, there are two main causes of bad shots; Wind, and indecision. One of these can be a product of design, the other cannot.

It happens that your  premise was a good portion of my discussion during a consultation visit today.

[Jaeger Kovich]

If golf is a game of recovery, why not make it fun, and interesting from there too?

[Garland Bayley]

The good courses simply discriminate between the two.

  Don't all courses discriminate between the two? If you are suggesting that hazards should penalize bad shots, then it seems you don't understand golden age vs. dark age in golf course design.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - that's a terrific entre into a complex and important aspect of gca. I've been thinking about it for the last hour. I think I would suggest this:

There are many ways to make a 5 on a Par 4. Most architects know how to provide the high-handicapper with at least a chance at making their 5s, bad shots and all, especially if honestly and humbly sought. Many architects know how to provide the average golfer with a reasonable chance at a 5, even after they've hit one bad shot. Some architects know how to provide the low-handicapper with a good chance at a 4 (if they've hit what is, for them, a bad shot) while still keeping a 5 clearly in the picture. But only a few architects know how to make low handicappers really work and sweat for their 4s (and likely emerge with 5s) after what is, for them, a bad shot; but at the same time, i.e. on the same golf hole, allow the mid-handicapper to grind for that possible 5 and the high-handicapper to happily accept a 5 (at least on occasion).  This last scenario/golf hole/type of architecture seems to me the great magic trick of the art-craft, i.e. to create the kind of greens and recovery options and lines of play that, on an average day with golfers playing their usual games, make for hard-fought pars and well-earned bogeys both.       

Peter   

[John Connolly]

The good courses simply discriminate between the two.

  Don't all courses discriminate between the two? If you are suggesting that hazards should penalize bad shots, then it seems you don't understand golden age vs. dark age in golf course design.

Who said anything about hazards?

[Sean_A]

Day in, day out, the best part of a good course is how it treats missed shots, not good shots.


Sounds like you are saying courses need width.  I would agree that given the quality of the average golfer is not terribly high, the recovery shot may be the most important in golf.  The question then becomes how often does an archie offer opportunities for the superb recovery to the green for a two-putt opportunity for par compared to get out of jail recovery and/or sensible lay-up to a position for a pitch n' putt par?  To me, the most fun courses seemingly offer the most heroic recovery more than is reality...meaning a truly outstanding shot will be required when it doesn't appear to be the case.  This sort of design works best when archies have a light hand with isolated hazards and instead use slopes in conjunction with hazards. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Bob

I agree. Tom Simpsons quote on recovery shots comes to mind. Unlike others I don’t think width is necessarily the key. I think it is about the ability to recover and the variety of recovery shots on offer.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Shot execution is one thing, mental aspects are something else.


Surely a very important aspect of GCA is about getting inside the players mind.........to what extent can the player read and understand the mental (as well as physical) challenge laid out before him/her?


And some players use their mind more than others.


Atb

[Sean_A]

Bob

I agree. Tom Simpsons quote on recovery shots comes to mind. Unlike others I don’t think width is necessarily the key. I think it is about the ability to recover and the variety of recovery shots on offer.

Niall

Niall


I would be interested in hearing about examples where lots of recovery variety (as much as for wide fairway corridors with minimal rough/trees) is on offer with narrow fairway corridors and/or trees/heavy rough.

During my recent game at North Berwick I was stunned by the narrow fairways...probably the narrowest of any course I know.  At this time of year it is mainly inconsequential, but my fear is during high summer if the rough isn't cut the course will become a chore.  I can't understand starting out with such narrow fairways in the hope the rough will be controlled.  Even in May there were a few instances of balls lost just off 20-25 yard wide fairways.  I can't see how less rough wouldn't offer more recovery options....that said...the fairways are stupidly narrow.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean,

You seem to be inferring I’m advocating narrow playing corridors with knee high rough just off, which I’m not. I think we’re agreed that a constant diet of either knee high rough or small, deep pot bunkers, or some such thing close to play isn’t much fun. On the other hand different degrees of rough, shallow bunkers, maybe even pockets of heather, broken up and on irregular lines of play make golfers think and offers a challenge and often a chance of recovery for missed shots, while at the same time off-set tees that offer angles can give a player options without resorting to “acres of inaccuracy”.

However, when I posted my comments above I wasn’t really thinking so much of what a golfer would be playing out of following a missed shot but what they would be faced with in terms of what they were aiming for, although I suppose the two go hand in hand. A course that allows a chance of salvation for errant shots is probably what the GCA should be aiming at, IMO of course.

Niall

Ps. As you know, I played NB the day before you and also the week before also. I can’t say I thought that the fairways were particularly narrow or any narrower than typical links elsewhere up here. They were perfectly playable for this time of year and as for how they will play in the height of the season will depend on what the greenkeeper does off fairway when the grass begins to grow. Like most courses he will likely let the rough go a bit leading up to the main comps while knocking it back the rest of the time.

[Tom_Doak]

Bob:


Your theory might explain why I spend so much time on site looking at the potential recovery shots from around the green, or from the wrong place in the fairway.


One of the things that bothered me most about working with Jack Nicklaus at Sebonack was how he always looked at the approach shot from right at the landing area stake.  Of course, that's where his drive usually winds up.  But I've spent my whole career giggling at the memory of where the landing area stakes were on my holes, when playing them later with friends.

[Jason Topp]

The best architecture should be evaluated on how it treats shots that are "almost good."  The most interesting shots in the game are the shots you have the ability to pull off but there is risk in the attempt. 

Treatment of truly bad shots is less important because the person who repeatedly hits them will play poorly regardless of course design. 

[BCrosby]

Jason -

Similar to your point, John Low said the key was how an architect dealt with shots that "aren't quite good enough". Complete dubs, much as perfect shots, are not the focus of a well-designed course.

Let's try a thought experiment. There are three golfers, Perfect Ben, Bogey Bob and Dubber Don.

Perfect Ben, as his name suggests, hits his shots where he intends to hit them. Always.

Bogey Bob's shots are sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes mediocre.

Dubber Don has no idea where any shot will go. He has trouble simply making contact.

Which of those three golfers will care most about the architecture of a golf course? (If your answer is Perfect Ben or Dubber Dan, I can put you in touch with Dr. Katz.   )

Bob


   

[Peter Pallotta]

And let's not forget Pistol Pete, a sort of hybrid of all three. He shows great promise, but he is a head case.

[Phil McDade]

The best architecture should be evaluated on how it treats shots that are "almost good."  The most interesting shots in the game are the shots you have the ability to pull off but there is risk in the attempt. 

Thus the enduring merits of golf hole concepts like the Redan, or a Principal's Nose bunker, or a properly characterized Cape hole.


Bob -- one of the more insightful observations I read about how "Perfect Ben" approaches golf came in Rick Reilly's book "Who's Your Caddy," where Tom Lehman -- near his prime, when he was really one of the great ball-strikers in the game -- allowed Reilly to caddy for him in a round somewhere. It was evident that Lehman cared not a whit about architecture -- just aiming points and flag positions, which he hit relentlessly and unerringly.

[BCrosby]

Pistol Pete is the most fun of all to play with. I have often watched the type in amazement. Maybe envy. And yes, he is a bit of all three types.

My little thought experiment implies good news for golf architects. 90% or so of golfers are some version of Bogey Bob.

The other implication, as Tom D notes above, is that the aspect of Bogey Bob's game that should receive the lion's share of an architect's attention are his misses.

Bob

[BCrosby]

Phil -

Interesting about Lehman. His approach is what I would have guessed. Which is another reason (one you can add to an already large pile of reasons) why touring pros are ill-suited to design golf courses.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

Phil -

Interesting about Lehman. His approach is what I would have guessed. Which is another reason (one you can add to an already large pile of reasons) why touring pros are ill-suited to design golf courses.

Bob

Interestingly enough, Lehman's designs (usually but not always with John Fought) are not bad.  He also did a creative renovation of Edina Country Club.

[Garland Bayley]

The good courses simply discriminate between the two.

  Don't all courses discriminate between the two? If you are suggesting that hazards should penalize bad shots, then it seems you don't understand golden age vs. dark age in golf course design.

Who said anything about hazards?

You didn't. But for anyone to understand your meaning/reasoning, you have to say more than you did. I just applied what I thought might be a likely interpretation.

[Kalen Braley]

The more posts I read on this topic, combined with some post-processing in the noodle...It seems like the old adage is more true than ever. 

Width off the tee with wide fairways and low rough... and then defend par around the greens.  It seems to be the best formula for the most amount of people.

[Garland Bayley]

The more posts I read on this topic, combined with some post-processing in the noodle...It seems like the old adage is more true than ever. 

Width off the tee with wide fairways and low rough... and then defend par around the greens.  It seems to be the best formula for the most amount of people.

What old adage is that? Where does it derive its age from?
How about rolling the ball back so that you can actually see where it goes. Would it be so necessary to defend par around the greens?
Why do you have to defend par anyway?
Why not just lower par with handicap?

[Buck Wolter]

Phil -

Interesting about Lehman. His approach is what I would have guessed. Which is another reason (one you can add to an already large pile of reasons) why touring pros are ill-suited to design golf courses.

Bob

Interestingly enough, Lehman's designs (usually but not always with John Fought) are not bad.  He also did a creative renovation of Edina Country Club.

I remember the half hour he posted on here!

[Kalen Braley]

The more posts I read on this topic, combined with some post-processing in the noodle...It seems like the old adage is more true than ever. 

Width off the tee with wide fairways and low rough... and then defend par around the greens.  It seems to be the best formula for the most amount of people.

What old adage is that? Where does it derive its age from?
How about rolling the ball back so that you can actually see where it goes. Would it be so necessary to defend par around the greens?
Why do you have to defend par anyway?
Why not just lower par with handicap?

Garland,

I'm not sure if Tom D was the one who "started it", but I first read it from him and have seen it repeated in various forms since then....and I very much agree with it. 

The reality is the ball doesn't need to be rolled back for 95% of players...its only top notch ams and pros for the most part who hit it ridiculously far, hence the need for a tourney ball for top flight competitions.  Nearly every other pro league has its own ball that everyday players don't use....baseball, basketball, football, etc.

But this issue isn't about the ball ... Its about how do you design a course that is both fun for the everyday Bogey Bob, while also not a pushover for Pistol Pete the scratchie.

And I believe the preceding mantra is the best way to do it....In My Opinion of course.