Gil Hanse on designing to encourage "offensive" golf

[Philip Hensley]

Gil Hanse made an interesting comment last night at the Tufts Archive fundraiser regarding designing to encourage "offensive" golf. He likened the golfers as "playing offense" while the architect is "playing defense" or the "defensive coordinator". Gil said when you build a hole where a shot can yield multiple outcomes of varying degrees, a player will be encouraged to "go for it" when he determines that he can live with most of the outcomes, even if some of them might be bad. And thus is okay with taking the risk.




For instance, a player on Pinehurst #2 might consider taking an aggressive line off the tee. The resulting shot could be: in the fairway (good), right off the fairway in sandy area (not as good as fairway but still decent depending on ability), in the sandy area next to but not obstructed by wiregrass (not as good as not impossible to play), right behind wiregrass (blocked out, could cost a stroke if only play is to slightly advance the ball), or actually in the wiregrass (f&cked!).


Gil said if there are 5 outcomes and the player is okay with 3 of them, he might be willing to take on the risk for the shot. In contrast, a fairway surrounded by deep rough only has 2 outcomes, one good and one bad.


The key is that this all depends on the player's assessment of the likelihood of the various outcomes, as well as their own assessment of their ability to handle each of the outcomes. And we know golfers are very good at determining their own abilities!


Tom Doak has said on here that many good players are actually very conservative even when taking into account "risk/reward". If you give them a diagonal hazard off the tee they will simply aim to the safe side and try to work the ball to a more advantageous position. Worst case scenario the ball stays on its original line.


If a pin is tucked the player will aim to the safe part of the green and try to work the ball towards the pin. They do this because the penalty for missing is so high. Tom says it is very difficult to get a good player out of this mindset and to risk something for a shot.
[/size]Too often we discuss "risk-reward" where the shot is an all or nothing result. Either you make it and get rewarded (even if your reward is simply not inducing a penalty stroke) or you get penalized. Every result is either a 0 or a 10.


This idea that Gil and Tom discuss introduces a grey area in the risk-reward calculations. One has to assess the likelihood of pulling off the shot in the first place, but also their own comfort with the resulting next shot if things don't go according to plan.


But that subtlety is what makes it so great. Everyone knows the penalty of hitting the ball into a pond if you don't pull off the shot. But no one knows the penalty of missing the green to a closely mown area where it looks like an "easy" up-and-down. It looks easy until you get to your ball, and the ball is on a slight downslope. And you are hitting to an upslope that crests and runs away from you once the balls gets on the green. And then you make a double bogey and can't believe you screwed up such an "easy" hole. And yet the hole wasn't easy, it just appeared easy because there wasn't anything drastic that appeared penal on the hole.


I can't keep track of how many times I've been inside 230 yards on #15 at Mid Pines and talked myself into going for it because I thought even if I don't hit the green I can easily deal with either the greenside chip from short or left, or the sand shot from the right. And I make a double bogey and then the next time I'm in that situation I convince myself that THIS time is going to be different! And it rarely is! Yet I keep going for it again and again because even though history (and my score on that hole) show that missing that green in two is very costly, it doesn't SEEM like it should be costly.
[/font]
[/size]Gil's comment along with reading Tom's previous thoughts on this topic really made me think in a more 3-dimensional way regarding penal design, strategic design, risk-reward, etc.[size=78%]

[Jeff Schley]

I really like Hanse's take and I can see where a player after practice rounds would get a game plan for a certain hole and depending on wind and how hard/fast the course is playing to execute the plan for those conditions.  I think when you get into US Open like conditions there is such a premium on avoiding the deep rough it definitely takes some of the options away and you are just hoping like hell you hit the fairway or out of the 2nd cut.

Some pros love to play the draw and many love the fade as well.  You always hear the commentators saying, "Kaymer needs to hit a draw here and he much prefers to fade the ball so let's see if he can do it."  Especially when you are at a hole like 13 at ANGC and many take a 3 wood to try and draw it.  A pro can certainly do both, but they certainly have a preference.  Even if they tell you they don't, they do they just don't want to admit it (Johnny Miller).

[Tom_Doak]

Most of my observations in the above quotes were based on two years of hanging out with Mr Dye watching the first two events at the TPC at Sawgrass. He wanted to see them attack the course, but they preferred to attack his design ideas. 


In the second year, Jack Nicklaus played the back nine 5 under par after barely making the cut, and Pete was excited by the possibility of him shooting a low number that would end the criticism.  Instead, Jack started playing super-conservatively, made a bunch of pars, and bogeyed #8 to shoot 68 and have no impact.  That was the most upset I ever saw Pete Dye!


At the Cape Kidnappers event, all the players were similarly conservative, missing greens on what looked to be the safe side only to find it wasn't so easy to get up and down.  On the back, they suddenly all realized they had nothing to lose, started firing at pins instead, and shot the lights out of the course!


Of course, putting a lot of water next to greens does not encourage aggressive play.  (Gil could stand to learn that, too, based on Doral.). To me, the key is just to make one side of the hole much tougher to chip or putt from - just enough to make players aim BELOW the hole instead of AT the hole.  That's all the difference in the world.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the offense-defense comment was first uttered by RTJ, but even he may have stolen it!  In general, when you read Bobby Jones comments (or really most good players) they think it ought to be an offense-offense relationship, and the architects job is to place hazards to tempt, or at least encourage a good shot, whereas the non-players, like RTJ, thought more in terms of defense against bad shots and good scores.  Obviously, there is some blend there, especially at the highest levels of play, which Pete Dye got to deal with a lot, whereas most of us don't.


The other constant we can't control is the confidence the player has at the time.  Lanny Wadkins once told me that when he was on, he would hit the highest percentage shot to take advantage of what the course asked for.  When off, he would hit his go to shot pattern, a la, the draw. I think that is pretty typical.

Encouraging shots vs. defending against bad ones is a hard distinction for most to make when considering gca. In general, moderate hazards and receptive targets do encourage bolder shots.  Many participants here seem to favor "all day" bunkers to truly punish those bad shots, but any hazard that makes for conservative play has warts, if used too often. 

I tend to consider each hazard generally as a 2 to 1 chance of recovery, or I doubt they will challenge it.  I have trouble believing most golfers run through 5 or 6 options in any detail.  Maybe Gil is a deeper thinker than I.....

Last thought, but given the prevalence of conservative play, as TD alludes to, and which is probably statistically proven to yield better results, did the Golden Age guys ever have it right?  Or was it right for their era, when with that equipment and maintenance, was taking a risk with driver off the tee a better play then than it is now, compared to challenging a green side hazard with a short iron?  Now, I doubt there is much question that you play safe off the tee and challenge to a degree  (see above re: shot pattern) on the approach?

[Philip Hensley]

I tend to consider each hazard generally as a 2 to 1 chance of recovery, or I doubt they will challenge it.  I have trouble believing most golfers run through 5 or 6 options in any detail.  Maybe Gil is a deeper thinker than I.....

I was paraphrasing and going from memory, as well as adding my own thoughts. I don’t remember if he said a specific number of options.


The general idea was that if there are multiple results but most positive the player will be encouraged to be aggressive, especially if they believe they can mitigate the unlikely negative result.

[Mark_Fine]

Risk/Reward and creating temptation 

[Christian Newton]

Really interesting description of Gil's perspective. I saw this calculation almost word-for-word expressed in No. 16 on Streamsong Black.

Playing it for the first time, there were probably three angles off the tee (maybe more to a better player) and they each had a risk/return value heavily impacted by the pin position. With a front pin you might accept a long clean line from the right fairway. A back pin might favor the left and run the ball off the bowl left of the green. Even bailing 45° off-axis and deep into the waste area—which could leave a 100 yard wedge—seemed like it might work.

A fun hole.