Lou,
Thanks for the shout out on 18 TR, and I agree it works. I look at the old TR plans and realize there is probably room to push that tee back if it is now required for longer hitters. As to risk taking,
I have seen a few, some by my former associates, that really don't seem to. Or, at Texas Star, I have never figured out the idea behind their 15th(?) First, it's too short to really need the distance advantage, and second, the straight, easiest to hit lay up route gives you a similar distance approach shot, so why risk the lake, narrow fw, etc. to play a driver?
I think Andrew is pretty measured. He always was a pretty consistent ball striker, so if he could carry the lake, he aimed that way. Similarly, in his few plays of Rangers GC, he summarizes his round by noting that the fw sand bunkers really just take the driver out of your hand, and there is no advantage to playing to a narrow area with a driver, at least on any hole that he can reach in two shots with a layup. Playing with him and his friends, and other high quality players, including Colbert, Wadkins, Nelson, Elkington, makes me think the oft heralded Golden Age strategies really don't work as much as they may have once used to.
And, I say may have, because no one ever really statistically measured who plays where and why, as many golf teachers do today. Good golfers today really have more info at their disposal when assessing risk, and that's before they look through their range finders. I have always asked myself if:
- It makes more sense to risk a fw hazard with a driver to avoid a greenside hazard while playing a < 5 iron in. Statistically, I doubt it is.
- It makes more sense to play for an open treen front (if you don't hit ground balls) or, if like tee shots with OB, it's better to come in from the same side as the greenside hazard, aim away to the far green edge, and curve it back, risking by degrees how much you want to come close to the pin and ending up short siding yourself.
- Or to have an alternate fw with risk for less than gaining a shot (i.e., reachable par 5 or 4 with drive) or at least 3 clubs less approach distance (from Brad Faxon). On a par 4, that takes a 460+ hole with at least a 45 degree dogleg for the "safe route: to create.
- Or to place risk holes anywhere early in the round, where you can't possibly know where the match stands, which helps determine if it is worth the risk. I guess in stroke play, earlier risk holes make some sense anywhere, as a good player will plan out where they need to make their birdies, but still, it's only the last few holes, down a stroke or hole, where it is absolutely compelling to risk a shot beyond your skill level out of necessity, so they probably work best there.
- And in general, I think golfers have gotten like old football coaches, i.e., more conservative as time goes on, based on memories of past results from their sometimes goofy risk taking. So, designing those Golden Age type risks really appeals perhaps to average golfers over better ones. That's not bad, but when cost is an object (it usually is) is putting that second fw in has to be questioned, which is why I rarely use them, no more than once per course.
Even then, a la Cowboys no. 9, it has been removed mostly because it was conceptually flawed from the start. (i.e., the safe left route was shorter, and even the sand bunker front left wasn't enough to steer golfers right for the angle. And, after we removed the front half of that bunker for cost savings, it really put the tee shot choice factor to nothing, just play left.