News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Long forced carries!?
« on: October 17, 2003, 01:40:43 PM »
I have no problem at all with long and forced carries, particulalarly off tee shots, provided the alternative(s) are both acceptable (doable) and make sense.

But the most important thing, in my opinion, is that there ARE alternatives and certainly reasonable ones. It seems to me that one of the most interesting aspects of high risk option design is that alternatives be as closely juxtaposed as possible recognizing that in many cases that doesn't present easy doing in design but if not perhaps something needs to follow (on the next shot) that additionally makes the lower risk tee shot alternative, closely juxtaposed, less appealing (perhaps second shot blindness vs real visibility for the high risk option!). While close juxtapositioning is in no way mandatory I find this style the most interesting (and probalby the hardest to design!).

And so, I'd like to offer some examples of golf holes that are famous that do not offer alternatives or reasonable ones, in my opinon, and also some holes from some architects that are roundly worshipped on here that don't either. (This is obviously to somewhat counter-act Pat Mucci's occassional accusations of the "most favored son" claim on here regarding certain architects).

And I'll offer some examples of holes that have relatively high risk forced carry options with wonderful alternatives.

Just a few with no real alternatives as I'm sure others will come up with other really good examples.

Merion's #18!!
Probably the mother of all high risk forced carries with no alternative! Why is that? One reason could be that in that day and age the idea of out and out shot testing was in vogue. But I really suspect Wilson et al would not have designed this hole the way they did if they basically didn't have to! Just think about it--this was probably not much more than a routing problem that had no solution. The green needed to be where it is (clubhouse) and the 17th green needed to be where it is therefore basically setting the 18th and the length of the hole which necessarily need to be it's length (locked in by the routing!).

Iniscronne's #18;
From the tips that no alternative high risk forced carry is too long for some conditions and many players. This problem interestingly can easily be corrected by bringing the tee forward and bringing the second shot bunkering really into play for long hitters off the tee.

Stonewall2's (North) #16;
This high risk forced carry from the tips with no alternative is really ridiculous to me. A rather unappealing lake (catch pond) is the entire reason for this. I know that doing anything about this would have been problematic but this one looks like something that could've been solved somehow.

There's apparently a hole of C&C's down at Cusgowilla that has this problem but I haven't seen it, only heard that one hole might have this problem;

Holes that have really terrific alternative options and some closely juxtaposed to the high risk ones particularly using the architectural fundamental---the well done diagonal;

PVGC's #6, #13, #16!!
Mid Ocean's #5!!!
HVGC's #18!!
NGLA's #2!, #16, #18!
Maidstone's #7!, #16, #17!
Lido's Channel hole (#4)!!! (definitely not closely juxtaposed and very unusual for it!).
Riviera's #10!!! (all kinds of things going on!)
Saucon Grace's #7
Kittansett's #5(?)
Rustic's #14!!
Applebrook's #14!

Thoughts and others??

« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 01:49:05 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2003, 02:00:18 PM »
Tom,

I played Kinloch in August which is right outside of Richmond, and I thought Lester George built some very interesting options off the tee.

Here is the 9th hole looking back. It is 556 yards from the back tee, but I assume that is measured using the left (looking from the tee) fairway. Going straight at the hole was shorter, but more risky and a longer forced carry.


The 11th hole 495 yards, was really well done. Left fairway (from tee) had a short carry. Right fairway had bunkers to target and carry, but it called for a longer tee shot.



The typical critique is that dual fairways off the tee really do not work because the risk-reward ratio does not work. Here I thought Lester did a good job of making that ratios interesting, even though I played it safe on 11.

Side Bar, no forced carry: Favorite hole was short Par 4 15, which had great options of going for the green with driver through the trees or iron to the dogleg fairway.


TEPaul

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2003, 02:22:08 PM »
Mike:

MAN ALIVE---them thar strategies are some SERIOUS "in your face" options!! Nothin' too subtle there! I don't know if I'm smart enough to even know what to do with all those distinct options! I just might compromise and aim right at one of those dividing hazards figuring it's more likely I'd miss it and be safe somewhere!  ;)

Did Vinnie tell Lester if he didn't create some of the world's most distinct options at Kinloch he was gonna take him out behind the barn and give him some kinda old fashioned Southern whuppin'?  ;)

TEPaul

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2003, 02:24:07 PM »
Mike:

I see three trees that've gotta go! What are they trying to do add insult to mind-warp??  ;)

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2003, 02:33:24 PM »
Among the several dual/split fairway holes at Kinloch, I felt this was the best one, the downhill, driveable 334-yard par 4 4th.  Layup to the right (left in pic) with a delicate pitch to an angled green that runs away from you, or try to drive green on left (right side of pic) with a hard fade/draw, depending on which side you play from.  More daring go for it angle has best angle in if come up short:



Also, the 400-yard, par 4 2nd, where the lower, wider fairway with no long carry (left of pic) has a longer and worse angle in, versus the other side, which takes a big poke to a smaller landing area, giving the best angle in:


Mike_Sweeney

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2003, 03:38:28 PM »
Tom,

Scott introduced me to Lester, and we met him after the round for lunch. They are obviously proud of Vinny and their Amateur "relationship" (see their logo), and the course was set up by Lester with Vinny and the Virginia Amateur in mind. Due to August heat, a US Amateur may be tough, but a Mid-Am seems like a lay-up.

Our caddy told us that Buddy Maraucci (?sp) is an honorary member.

Matt Ward (I think) would love this course for its driving options. Have I actually played a course in the East Coast that Matt has not?

DTaylor18

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2003, 04:41:24 PM »
Mike and Scott are dead on the money here.  Kinloch was a great course that made you think a lot out there.  There were other holes as well that had a lot of strategy.  We had a fantastic caddie that day that helped us navigate the course.  The short and long holes all had risk reward options that the long hitter could try and take advantage and the short hitters (me) could still be in the holes.  The 9th hole probably requires more thought than the 11th as the fairway is a bit more generous on the direct route.  But the different tee boxes on 9 can also help dictate which route you choose.  Matt Ward needs to check this place out.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2003, 05:17:39 PM »
Re the pic of the 15th:  That is either one stupid tree in the middle or two stupid bunkers left of the fairway.  At least get rid of either the tree or the pair of bunkers.  What incentive is there to flirt with the (non)fairway bunkers if your reward is to be behind a stupid tree.

If you keep the tree, eliminate one of the bunkers and move the other up against the landing area near the green.  

I understand this course is well regarded, but it appears "busy" from the photographs.

Regards,

Mike
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2003, 05:24:34 PM »
Tom,
Count me as one that feels that Inniscrone #18 needs the tee right in the middle of the crossing cart path that seperates the front and back tees. I think its a tremendous closing hole, and worthy of how a course gets such a bad rap for little reason other then one somewhat clumsy hole (the 10th) and a walk back up the hill at #5. (Its a good golf hole that gets way too much of a bad wrap to go with the rest of the phenominal golf architecture at Inniscrone.)

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2003, 05:38:06 PM »
I missed mentioning something about the driveable par 4 above in that you don't need a huge draw/fade to work the ball onto the green.  When I said "hard draw/fade", I mean in a long tee shot, not a "big" draw/fade in sideways movement.  The slope of the hill (down and toward the green) make it naturally feed toward the green, but it's a smaller target to hit, so there is more risk.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 05:38:55 PM by Scott_Burroughs »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2003, 05:44:22 PM »
Mike,

One thing that would help your problem with that tree is if the fairway were extended toward the path more, taking the tree out of play?

Interesting note about that tree.  My one time around here, I aimed at it, expecting my draw to move it toward the green, and I nailed the tree!  Kicked "back and to the right" (JFK quote!), with the tree inmy way.  Punched under tree, over right front bunker, just left of right greenside bunkers, so ball rolled up the green and way back to the left to within 10-15 feet.  Fun shot!

Mike_Sweeney

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2003, 05:59:30 PM »
Re the pic of the 15th:  That is either one stupid tree in the middle or two stupid bunkers left of the fairway.  At least get rid of either the tree or the pair of bunkers.  What incentive is there to flirt with the (non)fairway bunkers if your reward is to be behind a stupid tree.

If you keep the tree, eliminate one of the bunkers and move the other up against the landing area near the green.  

I understand this course is well regarded, but it appears "busy" from the photographs.

Regards,

Mike

Mike,

On 15, I would say the two fairway bunkers are more directional bunkers and less carry. They are not part of Tom's forced carry conversation, I just like the hole and added it to my post. Yes I did hit driver with a little draw, short and left. Up and down for birdie, thus my reason for liking the hole ;) It is only a iron off the tee, to play it safe, but it is semi-blind, so the bunkers give you some line up. The tree is very skinny, even at its top, and only a really bad iron off the tee would find it in the way.

If you added a bunker greenside, it would take away alot of incentive to go for it. The green is semi-blind, and my caddie was guiding me into the hole.

I can see why you said what you did, but this is a case where you need to see the hole.

The one thing Kinloch did not seem to me was busy. It has a Bethpage with water type of feel (Kinloch means "of the water" or something like that). It is a BIG, BIG property, big driving areas. I probably highlighted the only holes on the course that have any trees in play !!

Jim Jones  (no relation)was probably the best caddie I ever had. 94 degrees and 90% humidity, he basically carried me in the last 3 holes.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 06:03:51 PM by Mike_Sweeney »

DTaylor18

Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2003, 06:06:04 PM »
Yes, one of the great things about the course was that it has a very peaceful private feel with trees around ever hole, but I don't believe they ever affected the shotmaking.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 08:52:32 PM by DTaylor18 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2003, 08:58:51 PM »
"back and to the right" (JFK quote!)

Duh, Scott, it's "Back and to the left" from the shots that hit Kennedy from the Grassy Knoll front right.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2003, 08:59:07 PM by Scott_Burroughs »

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Long forced carries!?
« Reply #14 on: October 19, 2003, 11:41:42 PM »
I don't see anything wrong with long forced carries, so long as the shorter tees require shorter or no forced carries in keeping with the skill of the players likely to play them.  Having women's tees that require a 100 yard carry may be too much, by the same token requiring a 250 yard carry from the tips on a top quality championship course is certainly reasonable these days.

Also depends on what you are required to carry.  A 250 yard carry over a ravine where your best option is to re-tee is pretty mean, especially early in the round for us never-warm-up players!  If its 150 yards of teeboxes and 100 yards of lake the penalty is much less.

But a long forced carry better be due to natural features, like the aforementioned ravine.  I still think it was stupid of the USGA to set up Bethpage to require a 250 or 270 or whatever carry on holes that played into the wind just because they mowed the rough that way.  Why didn't they just check everyone's swing speed on the 1st tee and send those under 115 home early to save them on their hotel bill if they were going to do that?
My hovercraft is full of eels.