[Tommy Williamsen]

I played a couple of courses this fall with my wife, some higher handicappers, and old people like me. From the tees that we each played we were able to carry the sand, water, or gorges. But if we did not hit the ball solidly, carrying the areas was more difficult. Some of the forced carries were on second shots. If we didn't have good drives it was a layup. I remember hearing that Alice Dye thought that there should not be forced carries for women but that they should skirt the water etc. 


I don't think I can reach the green on 16 at Cypress Point anymore but at least that has a bail-out. In newer courses it seems there are more forced carris on par threes than older courses.



Westward Ho! not only has forced carries but ten and eleven are blind forced carries. Eleven is a forced carry over the sea rushes to a relatively narrow fairway. Yikes. It is one of the scarier tee shots I have played.



I read somewhere that Colt thought 110 yards should be the farthest forced carry, yet there are a few carries at PV, notably 5, that demand more than that.


Some of the new land set aside for golf demands forced carries. So what say ye about them? How long is too long? How often should they have them in 18 holes? Some of the courses being built today on very dramatic terrain requires them.

[Thomas Dai]

Tommy,
I’m curious about Colts comment as such a carry in the days of hickory etc would seem, modest as we may view it today, to be quite a carry for many less skilful or less powerful men and women back then especially with a ball of that generation.
I’m not an enthusiast for forced carries, far from it, so it’s interesting that you mention holes 11 and 12 at Westward Ho! as it’s not just the carry but the narrow width once the carry is immediately passed, spikey sea rushes and all, that effect the tee shots. Like you WHo! is a course I have great affection for and these two tee shots, or rather the amount of sea rushes that need to be carried, are just about the only thing I’d change about the course
Here’s a similar and quite extensive thread from a while ago - https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60145.0.html
Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

It's pretty axiomatic to avoid forced carries from the forward 1-3 tees.  I think Alice recommended that if required, they should be limited to about 50%-66% of the total distance players using those tees would be expected to hit tee shots.


I also think bail outs (think Cape Hole) are axiomatic for almost all players. Poor ones need to steer well clear, good ones tend to over strategize when there is a lot of room to miss the target.

[Tim Martin]

I read somewhere that Colt thought 110 yards should be the farthest forced carry, yet there are a few carries at PV, notably 5, that demand more than that.

Tom-I would think Crump had the final say at Pine Valley. When and how often he overruled Colt I can’t speak to. That said I wonder if that was something that you thought about at PV in your younger days? Perceptions often align with skill levels.

[Anthony Gray]

 
 Forced Carries do make the heart pump harder. Can add to the fun. I obviously played Tobacco Road from the wrong tees. Missed the fairway with driver a couple times. .


 I like the ones at TOC. They don’t take much to clear. One of the best is early in the round at Cape Kidnappers. Prestwick does it right. The Alps, Himalayas and the Cardinal are wonderful holes with negotiable Carries.


 There is the issue with the aged golfer. Some holes they can’t play.

[Jason Topp]

My game has deteriorated the last 5 years but I still play with the same people from the same tees.  There are now 3 holes where I need to hit a pretty good tee shot just to be in play somewhere.  Even then, the landing area is narrow.   


My poorer play deserves punishment but hitting 3 from the tee is pretty rough.  The easy solution would be to move up a box but I have no interest in admitting defeat. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

I read somewhere that Colt thought 110 yards should be the farthest forced carry, yet there are a few carries at PV, notably 5, that demand more than that.

Tom-I would think Crump had the final say at Pine Valley. When and how often he overruled Colt I can’t speak to. That said I wonder if that was something that you thought about at PV in your younger days? Perceptions often align with skill levels.

Tim, unfortunately both my friends from PV have died so I haven't been there in about ten years. I did play it every year for a dozen years and the only forced carry I worried about was the second shot on seven but I thought about that from the tee. Now might be a different story.

[Peter Pallotta]

For some reason, I'm not troubled by a forced carry off the tee, nor by a forced carry on an approach shot to the green, but a forced carry on the 2nd shot of a Par 5 drives me crazy!

[Tom_Doak]

For starters, there are forced carries over PLAYABLE areas [a bunker, playable rough, native areas that provide some chance of recovery] vs. forced carries over NON PLAYABLE areas [water, lost ball rough, etc.].  Obviously, the necessity of minimizing or eliminating the situation for less able golfers is much stronger if it's "make the carry, or don't finish the hole".


Mrs. Dye's explanation of why there shouldn't be a forced carry from the fairway was pretty simple.  Take a player like my mom, who could only carry it maybe 75 yards when she stopped playing golf.  If you've got a 30-yard forced carry over water, and she's more than 50 yards away from it, she will have to hit a 30- to 50-yard layup shot, and THEN, HOPE to make the carry with her next shot.  Would any sane person want to play a hole like that?


A carry over a bunker from the tee is another thing entirely.  I don't mind if there are one or two holes where the carry is significantly longer than some golfers can expect to make, as long as they can get their next shot onto the fairway if they fall short.

[Ira Fishman]

How does heather factor in to the debate? I remember a few forced carries on Swinley Forest and St George's Hill that were more than 110 yards.


Ira

[Anthony Gray]

 The key factor is it negotiable.

[Peter Pallotta]

The key factor is it negotiable.

I think the key factor is whether or not the rest of the hole justifies the forced carry and/or makes it worthwhile.

Is it a good golf hole, engaging and interesting and challenging? If so, I don't much care if it's because -- or in spite of -- the forced carry, which in that case is merely another feature of an overall hole-design that works.

PS - I don't remember ever making the distinction that Tom mentions above, ie between playable and unplayable forced carries. I understand it from an architect's perspective, but from an average golfer's perspective the thrill is in the attempt and the happiness is in the carry, with the consequences being not all that important, more just the 'price of admission'

[Tommy Williamsen]

As I noted in my opening thread, many of the new sites set aside for a golf course are pretty rugged, with gorges and valleys that must be traversed not just the usual ponds or creeks. Golden age designers had more benign land. Some architects will not take the more rugged sites because it doesn't fit their style. But many do. The sites today are glamorous but many demand forced carries. Ballyhack alone has nine forced carries. It is not alone. I don't see that changing very soon.

[Duncan Cheslett]

The course that I learned to play on had several holes where there was a carry from the tee over a ravine or impenetrable rough before the fairway could be found. I well remember the thrill and challenge these holes offered the beginner, and the delight as one’s ball bounded along the short grass on the other side. The same shot on a straightforward hole gave nowhere near the same satisfaction or pleasure.


A few years later I was able to witness my wife experiencing exactly the same emotions on the same holes as she took up the game. Such challenges from the tee - even a forced carry of only 50-100 yards - offer the most fun to the beginner and help get the addiction to golf well and truly ingrained. Of course, once a certain degree of ability and consistency has been achieved such a carry is barely noticed!


Forced carries on subsequent shots are another matter entirely. To my mind their purpose should be to challenge better players attempting to make a distant green in two shots rather than the weaker player trying to get there in three (or four!) They should not be of themselves difficult long hazards to hit over - the weakest player should be able to complete the hole on most attempts. The point of the hazard is to push the experienced player into a decision between going for it and laying up.

[Thomas Dai]

As young juniors in need of golf balls some mates and I used go ball-hunting.
The best places to find lost balls soon became apparent….in the gully’s and the scrub areas that lie between the tees and the fairways.
Atb

[Mark Pearce]

Mrs. Dye's explanation of why there shouldn't be a forced carry from the fairway was pretty simple.  Take a player like my mom, who could only carry it maybe 75 yards when she stopped playing golf.  If you've got a 30-yard forced carry over water, and she's more than 50 yards away from it, she will have to hit a 30- to 50-yard layup shot, and THEN, HOPE to make the carry with her next shot.  Would any sane person want to play a hole like that?

That trick can be played from the tee, too.  The 13th (?) on the Hunting Course at Slaley Hall has a pond which a really long player can carry, leaving a flick.  For most golfers, though, you lay up with a short to mid-iron then hit a far longer club for your approach (I haven't played it for years but used to hit 7I, 3W).  And it's possible that wasn't the worst hole on the course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()