[John Kirk]

 
You might consider me the ultimate Tom Doak sycophant.  I first bought his Confidential Guide in 1996.  When Pacific Dunes opened in 2001, it became my favorite golf course for many years.  I even joined two Doak-designed clubs early in their development.  Furthermore, I am in close agreement with his course ratings, and basic game philosophies.
 
However, we disagree on the worthiness of “shot values” as a key criterion of course evaluation. Golf Digest’s definition of “shot values” is too narrow and too arbitrary, as they attempt to break down course evaluation into seven separate categories.
 
Golf Digest defines “shot values” this way:
How well do the holes pose a variety of risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?


The other criteria are resistance to scoring, design variety, memorability, aesthetics, conditioning and ambience.  Shot values are given double weighting.
 
To me, “shot values” is a comprehensive category for evaluating golf shots, and one of only two criteria for course evaluation.  How I evaluate golf shots is the same way I play the game.
 
A.   Analyze the upcoming shot, and visualize/internalize how to play the shot.
B.    Begin pre-shot routine, and execute the shot.
C.    Watch the result.
 
With other players in your group, you are limited to:
 
C.    Watching the results.
 
The quality of the result can range from delight to demoralization.  A full range of emotions is possible.  Predictable results tend to elicit a muted response.  Unpredictable results excite the mind, from joy to disappointment, and occasionally a sense of wonder.  The emotion of disgust is mostly reserved for shots that finish in ponds, out of bounds, or are otherwise in places where the ball cannot be played.
 
Once completed, a round of golf can be evaluated in the quality and succession of shots played.  One could characterize the quality of the shot results as “poor”, “fair”, “good”, “very good”, “excellent” or “extraordinary”.  This is a simplification, since there are many adjectives to describe results.  The key to enjoying golf shots is the joy visualizing, executing and watching.  The beauty of the golfing park may be the key factor for all three activities.
 
I don’t want a steady diet of unpredictable, “extraordinary” results. Variety is key, though consistent “very good” and “excellent” results are highly desirable.  Even better are shots that rate as “fun” or “interesting”.



Playing a course the first time is unique, and perhaps the most important round for evaluating a course.  It’s the only time we assess tee shot options by reading the architect’s design cues, a key reason why playing a good course for the first time is such a thrill.  I suggest leaving the yardage guide in the bag is best, and using your wits and experience to read the golf course.  In my experience, our favorite architects design logically, and a player who knows his/her game will usually know when to challenge a carry bunker, and when to steer clear or short of the trouble.  Similarly, our favorite courses tend to feature prominently sloped greens so that the correct “miss” should be determined.  Some of my greatest disappointments playing a new course happen when I read the cues, execute the shot as desired, only to experience a “poor” or “demoralizing” result when the visual cues have deceived me, intentionally or otherwise.

 
I don’t know how anyone can rate a course with only one or two plays, unless you rely on expert opinions, based on previous experiences, to help with your assessment.  A rigorously honest rater would rate the course solely on shot quality, and the enjoyment of the walk, but since we can’t play every course five or ten times to get a reasonable sample size of shots, we make an educated guess.  There is no guarantee that a course that looks like great golf will actually yield the high quality shots.
 
My most memorable day of great shot results was the day I played North Berwick with three good friends, two of whom are named Mike.  The front nine is somewhat non-descript visually, but the results of my shots were extraordinary.  Minor mishits would put me slightly out of position for the next shot, making the next shot a bit more difficult.  You could see what you were supposed to do, even though some shots were blind or devoid of obvious landmarks.  The shot results were delightful all day long, regardless of the quality of execution.  One fun shot after another.  Then you turn back and head towards the clubhouse, experiencing golf holes of greater complexity and increasing visual interest.  It was among my greatest days playing golf.
 
This full shot execution model of “shot values” takes all factors into account — the texture of the grass and sand, the scenery and weather conditions, the succession and difficulty of required shots — in short, everything about playing the game.  There is no need for multiple criteria.  Five of the Golf Digest criteria — shot values, resistance to scoring, design variety, aesthetics, and conditioning — are directly related to shot values, as I define it.  Ambience and memorability may be more related to the walk in the park.  As an older player less concerned with improvement and competition, the walk is more important than the shots.  I’d estimate that typically, about 70-80% of my enjoyment comes from the walk through the environment: feeling the air, watching birds and animals, looking at trees, just appreciating where I am and trying to take it all in.  The other 20-30% is playing shots.  Twenty-five years ago I probably would have said the game was 60% playing shots and 40% enjoying the park.
 
It’s no coincidence that courses near the ocean, or in similarly wild and natural environments earn high ratings.  Parkland courses that maintain a semblance of their original environment also enhance the overall experience.  How one rates his/her experience based on the two evaluation criteria may not be consistent.  Sometimes the setting has greater importance.  Ran Morrissett’s recent profile of the Isle Of Harris GC (http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/scotland/isle-of-harris-golf-club/) exemplifies this.  Visually the course is stunning, and the weather appears invigorating as well.  However, the short course appears to have limitations as to shot types and results, and also for watching the ball.  How do you rate a course like this?  I can imagine a course earning a rating of 9 or 10 because of its supreme beauty, while I believe it difficult for a course to earn the 9 or 10 solely on the quality of the shot values.  The two criteria are not completely exclusive; there is some overlap.
 
In my perfect world, course conditioning and weather matter.  Soft golf courses with minimal wind yield a high percentage of full shots that neither bounce nor move in the wind, and are therefore inferior.  Greens and surrounds don’t have to be fast and dry, but they tend to make golf better.
 
To summarize, shot values are one of two ways a golf course can be properly evaluated.  The best golf courses yield the most compelling results for the full shot routine and execution.  Strictly speaking, the “walk” should be secondary, and the golf course that yields the most compelling full shot routines should be considered the best golf course.  At a minimum, I would like to hear your thoughts about the relative importance of the “walk” and the “shot values”.
 
 

[Ben Sims]

Frequency and amplitude. Think of amplitude as the delta between potential results. Frequency is just what it sounds like. Good design--to me--reduces the amplitude and turns up the frequency. That is, at courses I enjoy, I don't seem to have too many disasters (course too hard, lost balls, etc) nor do I have too many great moments (course not challenging, too predictable, etc). But I do experience moderate problems, with moderately good and bad results sprinkled into the round on nearly every shot. Reduce amplitude and increase frequency. 


Put in other terms, I think Tom's courses substitute novelty for nuance. Nice post John.

[Tim Gallant]

 At a minimum, I would like to hear your thoughts about the relative importance of the “walk” and the “shot values”.

John,


Supreme writing and this certainly has me thinking.


For me, it is less about the walk, and more about the shots. If you put Prestwick in the middle of a smog-filled city, and I could only see one hole at a time, I would love it all the same. The reason being is the shots that I face on that golf course. I think one of my very favourite places in all the world is standing in the fairway on their 3rd hole with about 125 yards to go. Those little bumps have been written about too many times to count on here, and elsewhere, but the reason it is so intriguing is that it stimulates the mind like few other shots. Should I take it low? What if it takes a bad bounce? With wind behind, can I stop a wedge in time? Into the wind, should I take dead-aim?


I remember on the 16th, I hit my drive about 50 yards short of the green, but on the very right side of the fairway (even possibly the first cut). The pin was on the right, and I stood there for 5 solid minutes thinking about what to do. In the end, I picked my go-to shot, the flubbed wedge, then did the same thing, then came 3 feet short, took 3 putts and ended up with a 6 or 7. I should have played to the flat part of the green but I couldn't face being 50 yards away from the green and not going directly for the pin. My ego was too big in that situation, and I paid the price.


Whatever definition one has for 'shot values' I would imagine that a course like Prestwick stands up with few peers in any regard.


I don't know if this answers your question, but for me, I generally agree with your assessment that shot values can encompass more than the Golf Digest definition, however, for me, the shots played on a quality hole will always outrank the views. That is why I am so dubious about the new Turnberry - do the shots inspire and stimulate more than before? I am sure the views will, but the views were pretty good before.

[Sean_A]

 At a minimum, I would like to hear your thoughts about the relative importance of the “walk” and the “shot values”.

I remember on the 16th, I hit my drive about 50 yards short of the green, but on the very right side of the fairway (even possibly the first cut). The pin was on the right, and I stood there for 5 solid minutes thinking about what to do. In the end, I picked my go-to shot, the flubbed wedge, then did the same thing, then came 3 feet short, took 3 putts and ended up with a 6 or 7. I should have played to the flat part of the green but I couldn't face being 50 yards away from the green and not going directly for the pin. My ego was too big in that situation, and I paid the price.

I faced a very similar shot on this hole, perhaps a bit closer and a bit in the light rough.  I thought long and hard on what to do and instead of what I considered the safe aerial route you chose, I tried to scuttle one up the slope and close for a birdie.  I was very close to success, but ultimately failed to execute.  I did however chip well and make a 10ish footer for par...seemed like hard work for a par on a reachable par 4.  I am know fully cognizant that of the hole because of this situation.  The green slopes right to left so being right with a right hole location is a no no. 

I don't have a formula for "shot values".  I simply look for variety in the design and how that variety allows for choices, fun, predictable and "unpredictable" results.  Although, I am a firm believer that the vast majority of "unpredictable" results are indeed predictable, its just that I don't have enough knowledge of the course to make accurate predictions....so bad bounces are usually our way of saying we didn't do a good job of predicting the outcome. My favourite course on the planet probably has the highest percentage of unpredictable shots of any course I know (if one chooses the ground game)....and I would still say that is a very low percentage of the shots on hand.  Still, for most, this relatively low percentage of unpredictable shots is enough to limit the appreciation for the design.  That said, shot value for me is tied directly into the terrain.  For instance, smaller undulations provide for different shot values than outright hilly shots.  They are both important in terms of shot value variety, just as is flatter shots. Having to take extra care in controling the ball flight due to the lie and then trying to judge how the ball will react is the ultimate in shot values...which is why wind and keen turf are so important to throw in the mix.

As a sort of counter-example.  I played a few Ross courses this year in Carolina, both very good and both at opposite ends of the presentation market.  However, given the hilly nature of each site, neither course won me over based solely on shot values because I faced the same shots over and over...that is either downhill, uphill or over a valley to knobish green.  To me, this style of design means that due to a lack of shot variety a few other things have to be present to grab my attention...superior greens with some contour...a good walk...and at least good interior views (I am firmly in the camp of views being important and part of architecture). Of those added criteria a good walk is the most important.  If the walk is suspect, I will lose interest in the course because golf is spoiled when golfers are faced with breaks.  Why do you think slow play is so irritating?  Its the same damn feeling for me. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Hi John:


I don't think we disagree too much.  Indeed, if your estimate that 70-80% of your enjoyment is due to the "walk in the park" rather than "shot values" as you define them, I place more emphasis on shot values than you do.


My problem with Shot Values is that I've still not seen an easily-applied definition for them, and I know how screwy the results can be when you've got a bunch of people rating a golf course with a criteria they don't understand.  But I've never said that there is no such thing, or that it's not important.


Your definition is that Shot Values comprise nearly everything about the play of the game ... and if we go with that, how could anyone deny their importance?  But then you're asking everyone else to lump all of the "playability" and "fairness" and the rest into one general category, which is not so different than "gut feel," recognizing that some people are [much!] more analytical than others.


I also look differently at bad bounces than most people do.  To me they are part of the game, and there should definitely be some places on any course where a bad bounce could screw you over.  For example, at North Berwick, there's the wall on #13.  Everyone sees that hitting the wall could lead to disaster, and most players therefore give it a very wide berth.  I don't build many walls, or water hazards, but I do build in contours that you've got to avoid or you MIGHT get screwed over.  Yet, when a good player fails to avoid those contours, he declares that I've over-penalized his pretty good shot, when what he's really saying is he didn't figure out that he had to give that possibility a wider berth.

[Sean_A]

Do folks also think of shot values in terms of what the archie is trying to deliver and how well it was delivered?  I don't know if I do or not, but I try to think of what the archie was trying to deliver for the overall design regardless of how I feel about that type of course.  Given this, I spose the individual shots which make up the design should be viewed in this light.  It helps temper my distaste for penal designs, focus on what is actually in the ground rather than what I want to see in the ground and helps explain why I think Woodhall Spa (for instance) is better than many on this board believe...though I don't think it a great course by any means. 


Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Wow - 5 terrific posts in a row, really good.

Since I myself can't easily define 'shot values' as a criteria, I am a bit suspicious of those who say they can and unconvinced as to its value as part of a ranking system.

The closest I can get to defining/rating it is to think in terms of how often I feel exhilarated, i.e. how many times I'm faced with a shot that is exhilarating. 

But as I type this I realize that most often this exhilaration, for me, is felt on a) the approach shot of  b) a Par 4, when it's to c) a contoured green with clear dangers around it, and d) with a difficult/scary pin position that day.

And so I'm back to square one. If I was rating, I couldn't actually just count those moments up and give higher shot value points to courses that made me feel most exhilarated, could I?

Or maybe I could...and should?

Best wishes to all

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

There is no need for multiple criteria.  Five of the Golf Digest criteria — shot values, resistance to scoring, design variety, aesthetics, and conditioning — are directly related to shot values, as I define it.  Ambience and memorability may be more related to the walk in the park. 

John, an excellent post. If you look at the statistical relationship among GD's criteria to each other and to overall score, you find raters tend to "vote the ticket," ie like you they make little distinction across the criteria. This is maybe to Ben's point about amplitude, or I guess variance of amplitude. To put it in statistical terms, the GD system suffers from multicollinearity out the wazoo.

Although you can't use any criterion in lieu of overall score, there are a few you can use as substitutes for overall score fairly accurately. This is another way of saying: at least some of the criteria are a waste of effort and time to collect and include. Shot values is one (in part because of its weighting) criterion you can use as a substitute for overall score. My suspicion is raters don't understand it any better than you (or Tom Doak) and score according to their overall like / dislike of the course. (They may well be using this criterion to impose their own "system," thumbing their noses at the GD organizers' parameterization.)

[BCrosby]

Mark says: "My suspicion is raters don't understand it any better than you (or Tom Doak) and score according to their overall like / dislike of the course. (They may well be using this criterion to impose their own "system," thumbing their noses at the GD organizers' parameterization.)"

Aside from Mark's unfortunate use of the word "parameterizatin" , this is spot on. From the days of Joshua Crane there have been attempts to introduce precision to ratings. I have yet to see a standard that cuts through the clutter. In the end  people vote their gut. 

Which is, actually, fine.

Bob   

[John Kirk]

I don't think we disagree too much.  Indeed, if your estimate that 70-80% of your enjoyment is due to the "walk in the park" rather than "shot values" as you define them, I place more emphasis on shot values than you do.

My problem with Shot Values is that I've still not seen an easily-applied definition for them, and I know how screwy the results can be when you've got a bunch of people rating a golf course with a criteria they don't understand.  But I've never said that there is no such thing, or that it's not important.

Hi Tom,

I do remember you making some sort of objection to the Shot Values category as defined by Golf Digest in the past.  The opening paragraph is a bit artificial, intended to ease us into the subject.

There's nothing new discussed here, though I may be framing the discussion a different way.  I don't think of the evaluation as a conscious effort while playing, but more part of the mental recap afterwards.

Regarding bad bounces, one of my long-time playing partners liked to contrast the difference between golfers whose ball landed in a divot in the fairway.  The story is attributed to two famous golfers, but that may be a myth.  One golfer looks down at his bad luck and says, "Will you look at this?", while the second golfer takes a club and declares, "Watch this."

Bad bounces can yield opportunities for exhilaration.  Even a buried lie in a greenside sand trap gives an opportunity to excel, perhaps 20-30% of the time.  If the conditions allow (not too buried, not too steep, ample room for rollout), these shots are not that difficult if you know how to do them, and because of that, I find them very exciting to attempt.

[John Kirk]

Do folks also think of shot values in terms of what the archie is trying to deliver and how well it was delivered?  I don't know if I do or not, but I try to think of what the archie was trying to deliver for the overall design regardless of how I feel about that type of course.  Given this, I spose the individual shots which make up the design should be viewed in this light.  It helps temper my distaste for penal designs, focus on what is actually in the ground rather than what I want to see in the ground and helps explain why I think Woodhall Spa (for instance) is better than many on this board believe...though I don't think it a great course by any means. 

Ciao

I might think about what the architect is trying to do, when "reading" a golf course for clues.  For instance, carry bunkers on a course designed by one architect may typically require a shorter carry than another architect.

Some architects design their greens so that short-siding oneself is more penalizing.  What irritates me is when I can't figure out where the safe play is.  Some courses are not designed with good logical clues as to where one should hit the ball.  This generally happens on undulating greens without a discernible tilt to them.
 

[John Kirk]

Mark says: "My suspicion is raters don't understand it any better than you (or Tom Doak) and score according to their overall like / dislike of the course. (They may well be using this criterion to impose their own "system," thumbing their noses at the GD organizers' parameterization.)"

Aside from Mark's unfortunate use of the word "parameterizatin" , this is spot on. From the days of Joshua Crane there have been attempts to introduce precision to ratings. I have yet to see a standard that cuts through the clutter. In the end  people vote their gut. 

Which is, actually, fine.

Bob

Mark and Bob,

Thanks for your comments.

I wonder whether evaluators consider how interesting the shots actually are, instead making general judgments about a course's excellence by how it appears, and by the quality of the "walk in the park".  Did I play a full complement of shots?  Did I have to adjust the trajectory, or take the spin off a wedge shot?  Did I I have to play a greenside shot away from the hole?  Did I play a wide variety of short game shots, or was it an endless succession of the same type of play?  Do the shots presented compel me to shape a clear mental picture of the upcoming shot?  Did I feel engaged and alert throughout the round?

It's hard to think of a visually nondescript course which is universally regarded as a great course, based on the quality of the golf played there.  The only one that comes to mind is Carnoustie, which I thought was a plain looking, very interesting course.  There has to be a course out there which is ugly, but plays beautifully.  Would we want to play it?

[Carl Rogers]

Don't Shot Values have to be defined within a golfer's relative abilities? 

A Mini-Tour Player and myself are in two different universes.

An interesting Shot for one maybe impossible or rather boring or too easy for the other.

[Tom_Doak]

Don't Shot Values have to be defined within a golfer's relative abilities? 

A Mini-Tour Player and myself are in two different universes.

An interesting Shot for one maybe impossible or rather boring or too easy for the other.

Carl:


Absolutely right, but that does not rule out John's belief that the result of the shot should be based on its excellence.  The weaker player is just forced to attack differently or play more safely when he can't pull off the direct assault ... but that doesn't rule out making par.


If you have greens with slope, the imperative is to stay below the hole.  Exactly WHERE you try to stay below the hole must be based on your abilities, but if you do it, you should be be rewarded over the guy who fails to heed to that imperative.

[Tim Gallant]

Don't Shot Values have to be defined within a golfer's relative abilities? 

A Mini-Tour Player and myself are in two different universes.

An interesting Shot for one maybe impossible or rather boring or too easy for the other.

Carl:


Absolutely right, but that does not rule out John's belief that the result of the shot should be based on its excellence.  The weaker player is just forced to attack differently or play more safely when he can't pull off the direct assault ... but that doesn't rule out making par.


If you have greens with slope, the imperative is to stay below the hole.  Exactly WHERE you try to stay below the hole must be based on your abilities, but if you do it, you should be be rewarded over the guy who fails to heed to that imperative.

That seems like the answer to me. If you take a golf shot and look at its 'value' as if it was for sale, a low value shot would be one where there was one route into a hole with no trouble around, thus, it doesn't really matter what or where you hit, the value is low because the difference between a good and bad; creative or uncreative; stimulating or unexciting shot are not differentiated?


By that respect, the value added to shots, and thus to a round overall is like onion layers. The more options, stimulus, challenge (real or imagined), excitement generated, the more the shot goes up in value - because as golfers, that is what we want right?

[Kalen Braley]

John,


Excellent post, and a topic I've given a bit of thought to as well.


The statement that resonates the most with me for how I view a course...is variety.  And it doesn't have to be just as it pertains to shots, but also the holes, the routing, the length, the elevation differentials, the look from the tee shot, in the fairway, on the green, using every club in the bag, etc, etc


The one course that has the most variety, or in other words where each hole appears and play very distinctly from the others...is RCCC. Other than #2 and #3 which have a similar feel as they play across the connector prairie section, every hole plays, looks, and feels very different when directly compared to any any other hole on the course. I thought it was pretty damn unique in that way and can't think of another course I've played that I can say the same.


Then throw in its natural, peaceful, isolated, and rugged location, and the whole setup works very very well.  I can't imagine ever getting tired of playing and exploring that course.

[Sean_A]

Do folks also think of shot values in terms of what the archie is trying to deliver and how well it was delivered?  I don't know if I do or not, but I try to think of what the archie was trying to deliver for the overall design regardless of how I feel about that type of course.  Given this, I spose the individual shots which make up the design should be viewed in this light.  It helps temper my distaste for penal designs, focus on what is actually in the ground rather than what I want to see in the ground and helps explain why I think Woodhall Spa (for instance) is better than many on this board believe...though I don't think it a great course by any means. 

Ciao

I might think about what the architect is trying to do, when "reading" a golf course for clues.  For instance, carry bunkers on a course designed by one architect may typically require a shorter carry than another architect.

Some architects design their greens so that short-siding oneself is more penalizing.  What irritates me is when I can't figure out where the safe play is.  Some courses are not designed with good logical clues as to where one should hit the ball.  This generally happens on undulating greens without a discernible tilt to them.

I was thinking more the general style of the course rather than specific shots.  Afterall, specific shots can only really be talked about from tees because everybody has a different approach...many of which cannot be accounted for by the architecture. 


I have only come across one course where the greens didn't make any sense to me....the Duke university course.  I didn't care for it in the least mainly because of the greens being detached from the surrounds.  Thats not quite true, The Castle Course also had serious issues with at least some greens, but at least I could see what the archie was trying to accomplish.  Which brings me back to my question of archie intent.  I think The Castle Course was actually designed quite well for its intent...its just that the intent was misplaced because its basically a resort course...not a championship design. 


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

the value added to shots, and thus to a round overall is like onion layers. The more options, stimulus, challenge (real or imagined), excitement generated, the more the shot goes up in value - because as golfers, that is what we want right?

Yes, but, be careful what you wish for.  There is a limit to how much interest and decision-making anybody really wants to do over 18 holes.  The problem with "shot values" as you are describing them is that if you try to provide 18 holes' worth of it, you'll just wear out the golfer somewhere before the end.  Just as all courses ideally have a mix of strategic and penal and heroic architecture, they should ideally have holes with a variety of difficulty levels.

[Tim Gallant]

the value added to shots, and thus to a round overall is like onion layers. The more options, stimulus, challenge (real or imagined), excitement generated, the more the shot goes up in value - because as golfers, that is what we want right?

Yes, but, be careful what you wish for.  There is a limit to how much interest and decision-making anybody really wants to do over 18 holes.  The problem with "shot values" as you are describing them is that if you try to provide 18 holes' worth of it, you'll just wear out the golfer somewhere before the end.  Just as all courses ideally have a mix of strategic and penal and heroic architecture, they should ideally have holes with a variety of difficulty levels.

Good point. On reflection, you wouldn't want every shot that has everything, but I wonder if this is where the designer uses deception to mask complexity. What seems like a shot with lesser value only reveals itself over time and brings some of the elements that we associate with good shot values.


Sean, really interesting that you talk about intent. I suppose in my mind, it is, in part tied in with what Tom said. Because you can't sustain the type of value that I described on every shot for the entire round, it is then left to determine first what the intent of the designer is, before assessing the value. I was thinking about opening tee shots on a lot of courses. Some believe/d in using the first hole as a way to get a player off and into the round, possibly to build confidence. Should we then ask if this is right, and then look at valuing the shots one faces on such a hole accordingly?

[Jay Mickle]

 
 I am not sure how to define or ascribe shot values but to me the best courses reveal themselves over multiple plays. At Mid Pines I was fortunate enough to observe the Kyle Franz renovation and talk at length about his redesign/restoration of the 9^th hole. He showed me how an original 15 yard long trough in front of the left shallow left front bunker could be used to funnel a ground shot from left to right onto the green and with proper weight access a back right pin position thereby avoiding 2 deeper right fronting bunkers. Another option was provided by a small mound at in the center back of the green that would redirect a well-played running shot to the back rear pin.  Of course most golfers take an aerial approach over the two fronting traps to this shallow part of the green unaware that less risky options are available. Of course option #4 would be to play to the left front of the green and 2 putt for par.
I suppose each of shots has a different shot value but in evaluating that particular hole most golfers would have no knowledge of all of the options the architect provided to access a back right pin.
 
 

[Ben Sims]

the value added to shots, and thus to a round overall is like onion layers. The more options, stimulus, challenge (real or imagined), excitement generated, the more the shot goes up in value - because as golfers, that is what we want right?

Yes, but, be careful what you wish for.  There is a limit to how much interest and decision-making anybody really wants to do over 18 holes.  The problem with "shot values" as you are describing them is that if you try to provide 18 holes' worth of it, you'll just wear out the golfer somewhere before the end.  Just as all courses ideally have a mix of strategic and penal and heroic architecture, they should ideally have holes with a variety of difficulty levels.

Tom,


Without giving you an obsequious nod, I'm glad you touched on the concept of moderation. Which, to me, is one of the more misunderstood and misused concepts. Far too many define moderation as a lack of interest. Actually, I think some people think it's just a lack of anything. There are tons of variables that can make a golf hole, even individual shots, interesting. It's not just dialing up or dialing down difficulty or some other variable.


I tend to lean towards moderation in golf as more than just variety. It's restraint combined with variety. I don't want the volume of the music to zig-zag from 1-10 on the golf course. I want a comfortable level of variety, say 3-8.

[Brad Treadwell]

Great thread and great posts all.  It is not uncommon to hear golfers with zero understanding or appreciation for GCA discuss "shot values", and specifically at my club as an excuse to not cut trees down, but that is a whole different topic.  I still don't know I could describe "shot values" but the one thing that stuck out the most was "variety".  But I wanted to ask this to any of you, but especially Tom Doak:


Give a couple specific examples of holes or shots that are universally considered to have a high "shot value"?  (Particularly from courses most on here are familiar with like a Pacific Dunes, etc)

[Tom_Doak]

I wanted to ask this to any of you, but especially Tom Doak:

Give a couple specific examples of holes or shots that are universally considered to have a high "shot value"?  (Particularly from courses most on here are familiar with like a Pacific Dunes, etc)

Brad:


That's a perfect example of why I'm leery of this term, because I really don't know how to answer your question as it's posed.


I guess I don't think of shot values as "high" or "low", but more "in balance" or not.


Let's take a couple of holes at Pacific Dunes as examples:


#6, the short par-4, allows you to hit it almost anywhere off the tee -- as long as you go to the left, there is a ton of fairway.  But the approach shot over the left green side bunker is extremely difficult from there, and if you take too much club for safety, you go off the right side of the green down into the chipping area, where you could take a couple more trying to get back up.  However, if you keep your tee shot hard against the right side of the hole, you can play into the length of the green straight on, and as long as you stay straight you won't have to deal with the trouble on either side.


#8, the par-4 that plays back to the north, is about as wide open from the tee as any hole at Pacific.  Depending on the hole location, you can play to run the ball just up onto the front left of the green; carry the front right bunker and use the backstop behind it; or use a sideboard on the right to sneak your shot around the right side of the bunker.  Most people would consider it a "second-shot hole," but the longer your drive and the more you stay left off the tee, the more options you have for the approach.


#6 has the potential for birdie, and the potential for disaster.  #8 is bit more straightforward, and more likely to yield a string of 4's and 5's.  Some good golfers would contend the Shot Values are not very high for either hole, because you can hit a bad drive and not wind up in a hazard.  But to me, both possess excellent shot values, because the result of your first shot has a profound impact on the prospects of your second shot, and the result of your second shot has a profound effect on your score for the hole.


As Bobby Jones once wrote, "there must be something to do, but that something must always be within the realm of reasonable accomplishment."  I suppose that's the best definition of Shot Values I've heard.

[Steve Lang]

   John, very thoughtful topic as normal..


Reading TD's last post (#22), perhaps gca should stand for golf course algebra (or my favorite "alchemy") and shot values are really just a matter of mixing real and imaginary numbers, forming complex numbers.  No wonder no one can define or classify them beyond personal experience, their imaginary portion does not allow, and golf course architects can befuddle all sorts of folks with their designs on first view or play.


Not sure one needs to play a course to appreciate it's design and even rate it on some scale of reference.  But ultimately, like a Bach Chorale, melody and tensions get resolved on the last chord.  One either wants to hear/play it again or move on to something else.

[Peter Pallotta]

Steve - terrific post, really fine bookend to the OP. To paraphrase Bobby Jones on Jack Nicklaus, you, Tom and John share a math brain with which I'm not familiar!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()