How much do shot values depend on aesthetics?

[Tommy Williamsen]

      I love the interview with Jeff Warne and the work he has done at the Bridge is nothing less than brilliant. But it got me thinking, which is seldom good, how much did he change the shot values of the holes?
 
For instance, number seven.
 
Here is the old hole.

 
The new seventh

 
He widened the fairway to increase the options off the tee. I think we all agree that aesthetically the new hole is simply stunning and visually seems to bear little resemblance to the old hole. If you were scoring the hole’s shot value how much different would the new hole be?
 
The same thing can be said of number 11.
 
Old hole

 





New 11

Jeff brought in the bunker on the right and changed the mow lines to include the bunkers in the fairway. How much do shot values change?
 
I guess my question is; do aesthetics add to the perceived quality of a hole?
The thread that Sean Arble began on Cleveland GC shows a dreadful factory in the distance. It impacts our enjoyment, maybe, but would it impact your feeling about the quality of the shot values?
 
I have to admit that I have to work to rule out aesthetics when I think about the architectural merits of a course.
 

[jeffwarne]

VERY good questions Tommy-and something I wrestled with constantly-and in part I agree with your comments.
And also a reason why photos are not always the best way to evaluate a course.

One very important element that you do mention is the additional option off the tee of accessing the speed slot by driving left of centerline bunker on what is now fairway, formerly all bunker.
This results in far more balls farther down the fairway(down the fairway where the sunlight meets the shadows), opening up a much better view of the green and width created by shaving the hill on the right side, even allowing for a runup around the right greenside bunker for a second shot or especially a third shot for a weaker player.
There's a LOT of fairway over that native grass (about 50 yards of depth and quite a bit of room further right, shaped in a nascar bank to allow putting(or rolling) a ball around that right bunker to a right pin which is otherwise unaccessible due to gravity feeding away from it if approached from the left even with a fade.


#11 is also a good example of what you mention. Practically speaking the shot values haven't changed THAT much, though the bunkers are more centerline, and there is far more fairway available when challenging a bunker-but some might argue why would you rather than just aiming down the middle?
. Some holes had pretty good elements before so rather than change them we simply enhanced them.  11 had cool bones(a nice angled tee shot), we just cleaned them up and got the tees down into echo Valley (a part of the track the owner loved and wanted to see golf down there)
Moving the tees to the right hurt the natural angled tee shot so we had to enlarge the fairway and reposition the bunkers to recreate the angled illusion or "turn your eye" as Gregg says it..


Even #13 it could be argued as well it's aesthetics not strategy as well, but in that case we were trying to create some strategy after relocating a tee 70 and 80 yards nearer the green.


One case study that did not make the cut into the interview(Ran did a wonderful job of editing what turned into a monster long piece once I got going:)) was our changes on #12 where again we lowered a tee 30 feet and moved it 40 yards closer to the previous green. I had included it because in that case it showed the extremes we had to go to make it walkable and visible and to add strategy to a hole that we had also inadvertantly straightened by moving the tee.


The hole(12) ended up far more difficult than the old one, which is somewhat balanced as some holes got easier (13 for example you now hit DOWN the hill from all but the back tees, rather than across it, making it play shorter)


I can send you the original document if you can want to see the originals.

[Tommy Williamsen]

VERY good questions Tommy-and something I wrestled with constantly-and in part I agree with your comments.
And also a reason why photos are not always the best way to evaluate a course.

One very important element that you do mention is the additional option off the tee of accessing the speed slot by driving left of centerline bunker on what is now fairway, formerly rough.
This results in far more balls farther down the fairway(down the fairway where the sunlight meets the shadows), opening up a much better view of the green and width created by shaving the hill on the right side, even allowing for a runup around the right greenside bunker for a second shot or especially a third shot for a weaker player.
There's a LOT of fairway over that native grass (about 50 yards of depth and quite a bit of room further right, shaped in a nascar bank to allow putting(or rolling) a ball around that right bunker to a right pin which is otherwise unaccessible due to gravity feeding away from it if approached from the left even with a fade.


#11 is also a good example of what you mention. Practically speaking the shot values haven't changed THAT much, though the bunkers are more centerline, and there is far more fairway available when challenging a bunker-but some might argue why would you?
. Some holes had pretty good elements before so rather than change them we simply enhanced them.  11 had cool bones, we just cleaned them up and got the tees down into echo Valley (a part of the track the owner loved and wanted to see golf down there)
Moving the tees to the right hurt the natural angled tee shot so we had to enlarge the fairway and reposition the bunkers to recreate the angled illusion or "turn your eye" as Gregg says it..


Even #13 it could be argued as well it's aesthetics not strategy as well, but in that case we were trying to create some strategy after relocating a tee 70 and 80 yards nearer the green.


One case study that did not make the cut into the interview(Ran did a wonderful job of editing what turned into a monster long piece once I got going:)) was our changes on #12 where again we lowered a tee 30 feet and moved it 40 yards closer to the previous green. I had included it because in that case it showed the extremes we had to go to make it walkable and visible and to add strategy to a hole that we had also inadvertantly straightened by moving the tee.


The hole(12) ended up far more difficult than the old one, which is somewhat balanced as some holes got easier (13 for example you now hit DOWN the hill from all but the back tees, rather than across it, making it play shorter)


I can send you the original document if you can want to see the originals.

Well that would be fun and above and beyond the call of duty.
tomwilliamsen@gmail.com
Thanks

[David_Elvins]

Tommy,


IMO the biggest influence on shot values is the firmness of the course.  The more the ball bounces and runs, the more controlling trajectory matters.


It could be a trick of aesthetics, and Jeff can chime in on this, but it looks to me that the transformation at The Bridge would allow the course to play optimally firmer, and this has a multiplying effect on creating strategy and interest.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Reading Jeff’s post got me wondering; do renovations/remodels generally affect shot values or are many changes cosmetic?

[Peter Pallotta]

On the one hand, I think aesthetics and functionality are more closely aligned (especially on modern day greats) than one might imagine. On the other, that very statement/belief probably identifies me as an average golfer instead of a very good one. 
Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, first hot take is not that much, not just here, but anywhere.


In those few examples of


I could see the gnarly bunkers appearing to be more intimidating, perhaps dictating strategy more, i.e., steering golfers into a more conservative playing mode?


On the 7th, with the new

center fw bunkers, I can't see too many golfers aiming for the little ribbons left with full driver, so do they affect play?  However,

widening the fw right creates an option, and it changes aesthetics, but not sure those aesthetics change the strategy, just the actual new place to land a tee ball that seems prime, albeit, longer than anywhere left.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jeff, when you have gone back to one of your courses to do some work, do you change shot values, degree of difficulty, or are the changes more cosmetic and addressing drainage issues?

[jeffwarne]

One thing that bears mentioning is the fact that the walk is nearly a mile shorter and over 500 vertical feet of climbing to tees was eliminated. Not sure that has a lot to do with "shot values" but in many cases it created an angled more interesting tee shot, and gave us some uphill to go with our downhill.


I'd say the biggest "shot value" change was the conversion of many acres of sand into fairways and moving the sand into the corridors rather than the sides.
Over 18 holes, that would seem to affect "shot values"



Back on Tommy's question which is a good one
Using the examples and pictures from the interview,
I would agree somewhat with the takes above, though the fairway left of the centerline bunker on 7 is hardly a "ribbon" (30 yards) and feeds back to the center down a speed slot once past the center bunker.


In MANY cases we only tweaked a "shot value" moving bunkers from completely flanking to at least causing them to be considered-or even aimed away from.
before, you simply played the shot and only noticed the bunkers IF you hit a poor shot right or left.


Realistically though, most golfers just don't think the way we GCAers think MAINLY BECAUSE of the steady diet of repetitive shite they were weaned on and fed from 1960-2005 by the lot selling signatures and those who emulated them and frankly survived and thrived due to a course building bubble.


I'd say the work on other holes in the interview
-6-(centerline bunker in fairway(not pictured) and semiblind second that can be accessed via the left or the right on the ground-the best drive onnthe hole is hit right of centerline bunker leaving a clear view of the pin and a ground game approach)
12-cut from interview- (bunker left with fairway added where one can lay up or go over to access right pin, or skirt it with a draw and substantial fairway added over the left bunker)
17 (multiple driving options-big change in "shot values")
10-penal bunkers down the left have been replaced by bunkers dictating a choice of layup, go over or skirt
a big change in "shot values"
Not in interview
9 (-has large left center bunker on second shot that can be flown to access right and center pins affected by prevailing right to left wind and tilted green-fairway widened substantially on the left in front of and over the bunker to create this option)


But frankly, most golfers really don't take on these challenges due to a lack of ability or recognition of the preferred angles-OR fear of the penal bunker consequences
(and the hangover from bland architecture described above)


a real example of Tommy's take on aesthetics is hole #1 in the interview
Most golfers aim left because the fairway looks so wide, and end up in the left bunker because the fairway slopes that way from left center over and the turf is firm and fast.
The best way to play that hole is to take exactly the same line one used to take down the center of the old fairway(hence no change in "shot values" ), and frankly the changes have been mainly cosmetic there for a good player-unless you are a short hitter who now has twice as wide of a fairway on the left, setting up a nice angle for a running second.

[Joe Hancock]

I wish we could label some of these threads as “RWL”, which stands for Real World Learning. This thread would be such.....nice job to all who have contributed so far.

[Tom_Doak]

A large percentage of the restoration and renovation work being done today is cosmetic [excellent word choice], and doesn't affect shot values much at all.  That's why I'm more of a skeptic about such work than Ran is.


Even restoring a bunker (or moving one, or taking one out) is not a big change to shot values since the good player scores just about the same from a bunker or from rough. 


However, the cosmetics can indeed affect how the player thinks about a golf hole and his strategy for playing it, which then has a ripple effect on shot values.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, when you have gone back to one of your courses to do some work, do you change shot values, degree of difficulty, or are the changes more cosmetic and addressing drainage issues?

Tommy, with my mid level, strive to make a profit clientele, I usually get called back to reduce sand bunkers and mowing.  We strive to keep similar character to the course, but usually decrease difficulty.  For example, I find many greens where the flanking bunker covers almost half the front of the green.  If we take out one lobe (usually 15-20 feet wide) of sand, we can leave one guarded Sunday pin position, but keep the green more open for the other six days a week, which was usually our original intent, but frankly, the "look" became more important in the 90's. 


One test before removing is how many people have been in a bunker.  On the 7th hole in this thread, I would be the three pot bunkers up top had almost zero action, and it was good to remove them, especially in how they replaced them with fw, better sight lines to green from right, etc.


Another issue is in real estate courses, lots of time, the bunkers may have been superficial to golf, but look fabulous from surrounding lots, which have long been sold off and the course sold off by the developer.  It has a new function, usually as a everyday playable course, the entire bunker scheme might be re-thought in terms of the new course mission.


To be frank, when I do these bunker reductions, it seldom seems to affect the aesthetics, as I think we got into a period where bunkering was over emphasized anyway, and we are kind of bringing them back in scale.


Jeff W, I agree the fw to the left of the center bunker on 7 is plenty wide.  The right side is cosmetic.  The shot values only change if the right ribbon is an actual target, or if the repositioning of everything changed the width of the left portion.  I can't tell from the photos because (I think) slightly different angles, but maybe opening up the vision by pulling the hill back makes shorter and right a good option, especially when pins  are left.


Overall, its a much better hole, but the question is whether the shot values have changed a bunch?  Have the angles, options, sight lines, etc. been reworked to make the prime position off the tee more tempting/needed, less needed or about the same?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff B.
On 7 I'm speaking(the 30 yard gap) about the tee shot, which is not pictured in this thread (It's in the interview-I have no picture posting skill)
It's a par 5 and the pictures in this thread are taken from the top of hill that a good tee shot runs down. (also not exact angles)


Agreed that the right side of the center bunker on the second shot(pictured in this thread) is cosmetic, BUT I've seen many a ball skirt through that gap on the right by accident(a better outcome than being stuck on the old hill). The bigger change to that second shot is the area over the cut back hill that widens the second shot landing area considerably-especially if being played from 220-170, where good drives that challenge the tee shot pot bunker ened up, bt still are generally running shots given they are struck off a downhill lie.
Ironically,because we've gone to a very short height(about a 1/2 inch) of cut for the rough, which allows any drive past the pot bunker to run down the hill(through te rough on the right), neutering the reason for challenging the pot bunker.-we will address this in the off season

[Mike Sweeney]

One thing that bears mentioning is the fact that the walk is nearly a mile shorter and over 500 vertical feet of climbing to tees was eliminated. Not sure that has a lot to do with "shot values" but in many cases it created an angled more interesting tee shot, and gave us some uphill to go with our downhill.

Jeff,


Amazing data that should be added to the original interview - 1 mile shorter, and 500 feet. Has this changed the culture of walking at The Bridge? The "old 16" was kind of the poster child for "up to the tee for a nice view". From my one play, I remember it was a tough hike up there and I had younger legs back then.


You seemed to have captured a "Golf Czar" view of The Bridge, and I am curious if members/guest are following you down this path. It is a very fresh perspective on GCA.com.

[JBovay]

The correlation between a course's Aesthetics and Shot Values scores, in Golf Digest's 2017-18 ranking, is about .69. For a 1-point increase in the Aesthetics score, the Shot Values score increases by .61.


FWIW, the correlation is higher between Ambience and Shot Values for GD panelists (correlation coefficient .82), than between Aesthetics and either Ambience or Shot Values.

[Ira Fishman]

Great thread. As a general rule, do restorations of greens to original size and contours have a meaningful impact on shot values?


Ira

[jeffwarne]

One thing that bears mentioning is the fact that the walk is nearly a mile shorter and over 500 vertical feet of climbing to tees was eliminated. Not sure that has a lot to do with "shot values" but in many cases it created an angled more interesting tee shot, and gave us some uphill to go with our downhill.

Jeff,


Amazing data that should be added to the original interview - 1 mile shorter, and 500 feet. Has this changed the culture of walking at The Bridge? The "old 16" was kind of the poster child for "up to the tee for a nice view". From my one play, I remember it was a tough hike up there and I had younger legs back then.


You seemed to have captured a "Golf Czar" view of The Bridge, and I am curious if members/guest are following you down this path. It is a very fresh perspective on GCA.com.

Mike,
16 may have been best example of what we did, but some still argue they preferred the old hole.(the view while nice, is no better thah  one gets from many areas of the course and clubhouse)
and we didn't exactly need 4 downhill par 3's.....
In most cases, the holes we altered the walks on, the holes themselves got better(or at least more strategic or aesthetic-OR if nothing else, more playable)


The walking has always been part of the culture as walking is required unless medical or over 65, but most over 65s still walk.(more now than ever-some of our older players-say 75-80 might take a cart after 9)
The caddies probably are the biggest beneficiaries of the reduced walk.
the original primary focus of the renovationwas to make the course more walkable, but as we got in there we realized there were tremendous opportunities to improve the interest of the course as many of the tee relocations required some landing area/fairway modifications etc.....which led to multiple strategic and aesthetic opportunities.


Golf czar?
No.... I still hide in the basement on occasion, just like any other pro in peak season

[JBovay]

The correlation between ALL of GD's individual category scores is very high.


Holding each of the other scores constant, a 1-point increase in the Aesthetics score is associated with a .11-point decrease in the SV score.

[Rick Lane]

Great thread. As a general rule, do restorations of greens to original size and contours have a meaningful impact on shot values?


Ira

I'm not a rater so not really sure what the technical term "shot value" exactly means, but when our course was renovated and the greens expanded out onto the flanges to their original size, it did change the shot TYPES and OPTIONS a player has.   For instance, picture a greenpad with a mound on the front left corner, that before renovation was rough, so if you hit a ball there, it stayed there.   Now, with the green extended out onto that mound, you are able to run a ball at the mound, and it may kick right onto the green, or it could go the other way toward a bunker.    So standing in the fairway at 160 yards, you USED to really only have a high shot in mind to get past that mound, now you see it as a "bank" that you could use for a different type of shot....

[Tommy Williamsen]

Great thread. As a general rule, do restorations of greens to original size and contours have a meaningful impact on shot values?


Ira

I'm not a rater so not really sure what the technical term "shot value" exactly means, but when our course was renovated and the greens expanded out onto the flanges to their original size, it did change the shot TYPES and OPTIONS a player has.   For instance, picture a greenpad with a mound on the front left corner, that before renovation was rough, so if you hit a ball there, it stayed there.   Now, with the green extended out onto that mound, you are able to run a ball at the mound, and it may kick right onto the green, or it could go the other way toward a bunker.    So standing in the fairway at 160 yards, you USED to really only have a high shot in mind to get past that mound, now you see it as a "bank" that you could use for a different type of shot....

Sounds like a pretty good definition of shot values on your course.

[James Bennett]

I don't want to cheapen nor distort he discussion, but.....
- does lipstick change  the shot values?- does botox change the shot values?- does plastic surgery change the shot values?- does a low-fat/low sugar diet combined with exercise change the shot values?
Depending on your answers above, is it that easy to change your shot values?
Personally, I understand how irrigation/drainage/thatch removal can change the play-ability of a hole. and the shot values.  I despise the 'hit and stick' that we have seen at Liberty National (New Jersey) and Medinah in the last two weeks.  But I struggle to see how changing a bunker a little which changes aesthetics really changes shot values.  It might make the course 'better' as an overall experience, but the shot values are likely unchanged from a bunker presentation tweak

[jeffwarne]

While I agree 100% with James' comments on changing a bunker "a little" for aesthetics not changing "shot values"...


I would 100% dispute that the bunkers and more importantly shot values at The Bridge were changed a "little" bit over the 18 holes-perhaps 3-5 holes fit into that category-mainly because they were pretty good holes before.In fact we went to great lengths to restore the original shot values on a couple holes after altering the position of a tee dramatically to reduce climbing.


This is especially true when teaching a lower speed senior, junior or woman player with ball control.
I just finished a playing lesson with an 84 year old gentleman who skirted bunkers wonderfully on my instruction, played wide of others, carried a couple others and used speed slots the entire round. We play the red tees and I use his clubs swinging at the same speed. Every hole there is something to navigate on the first, second and third shot where positioning cleverly can save shots, and position is vitally important when speed mandates usually running the ball onto the green from outside 80 yards.
Before, it was mainly a process of hitting the fairways and having the ball tend to settle in the middle due to banked in sides of the fairway, with a few notable exceptions like 4,11, 13 where there was some creativity involved in running a ball onto the green or using a sideboard.


The 4 pictures chosen in this thread are a small sample and illustrate wonderful aesthetic changes(as well as portions of increased strategy and "shot values" but don't illustrate the most strategic and tactical changes made.
The number one change on 7(which is in the interview but not this thread), which compliments and allows the second shot additional width picture to make sense, is the tee shot total revamping involving a 100 yard shorter walk, better strategy due to extensive fairway widening and a bunker contained within it , and actually a REDUCTION in waterview aesthetics by lowering the tee.


Every single bunker, tee, and fairway were altered over 8 years and shot values dramatically changed for anyone with control of their ball.
On many holes 30+ yards of fairway were added and 30-40 yards of bunker removed.
More importantly, the bank effect of fairways always helping balls to the middle was reduced or eliminated on one or both sides. enabling a smart player access to preferred or in the case of slower swing players, essential angles.


Anyone interested in pictures that illustrate this more clearly send me a private message

[Peter Pallotta]

Maybe I’m too ‘sensitive’ and/or not yet a good enough golfer:
But a 60 yard fairway with clearly delineated lines of uniform rough looks different to me than a 60 yard wide fairway that seamlessly transitions into patchy waste areas and broken ground;
And a wide and shallow fairway bunker with wispy surrounds at the elbow of a dog-leg looks different to me than a small, deep pot bunker with shaved edges in exactly the same spot;
And a canted fairway on a short Par 4 that from the tee is a freshly cut bright emerald green looks different to me than the same canted fairway that’s somewhere between a light green and a dull brown.
In each case, these are merely ‘aesthetic’ differences, ‘cosmetic’ ones, and as I say perhaps the better (or less sensitive) golfer pays these ‘looks’ no attention whatsoever in terms of how he strategizes about and plays the hole. But for me: each look ‘signals’ something different — some making me leery and tense and making choices more complicated, others putting me at ease and making choices straightforward.
And for an average golfer, few things lead to better ball striking than does being able to confidently commit to a given (and seemingly sensible) choice.
So for me, that’s how aesthetics and functionality, the looks and the playability, go hand in hand — at least potentially if not necessarily, and at least for some golfers if not for all.

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


You aren't wrong and any strategic golfer takes any cue he can get to maximize his chances of success, while minimizing their chance for disaster, with strategy really being the balance they strike between the two elements.


Your examples are good ones of conditioning being different than aesthetics.

[Kalen Braley]

I think its a good thing to feel inspired (or dare i say) stimulated on the golf course.


Its been more than awhile since I've been wow'd by before and after pictures....but that work at the Bridge is just terrific.  Maybe the playing corridors are the same, and perhaps even the strategy has some similarities, but the feelings evoked and what i saw in that interview link was just outstanding!