[Matt_Cohn]

I think it's pretty accepted to have a stretch of, say, three very difficult holes in a row: 8-10 at Pebble, 3-5 at Colonial, 16-18 at LACC or Winged Foot West, 10-12 at Augusta, 11-14 at Cypress, and so on. It's the "heart of the course," one might say.


But what about a stretch of 3 (or more) of the easiest holes on the course consecutively? I'm thinking of one 7,000 yard course with a reachable par-5 followed by two par-4's under 330 from the tips; or another 7,200 yard course with a reachable par-5 followed by a 130 par-3 and a 350 par-4, all in a row. For some reason, this type of sequence of easy holes feels less common and perhaps slightly frowned upon.


I suppose Winged Foot West is one course where you have the shortest par-5, 4, and 3 all in a row, and I'm sure there are other examples. But I'm more interested in the philosophical/conceptual side of this. Is having a particularly easy stretch less acceptable or virtuous compared to having a particularly hard one?

[Tom_Doak]

There are many designers and many good players who don't think you should have any easy holes at all . . . if they're short you've got to build a small green so the average guy doesn't get away with winning a hole by accident.  [Please don't quote me on this without full context.]


It's not uncommon for great courses to have an easy stretch, I'm surprised you didn't give them a list.  7-10 at North Berwick is the flattest part of the course, with a couple of very short par-5's.  7-10 at Merion has the three very short par-4's.  2-3-4 at Pebble Beach used to be quite easy before they changed par at the 2nd.  And of course, the loop at The Old Course, which we should restrict to 7-10 because the Eden slaps you in the face on the way out.  Augusta has 7-9 and 13-15 [or even 13-16 with the easy pin on 16], which gives contenders a chance to catch up on the leaders while the leaders themselves are in the brutal stretch of 10-12.


The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

[Kyle Harris]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

[Tom_Doak]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

So do you think it's fine to have the handicap holes bunched?  I was always told it was better to spread them out, but I suppose it was the good players who were telling me that!

[jeffwarne]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

Good comments Kyle, Tom.
IMHO handicap strokes should be allocated proportionately, with very little regard for the "difficulty" of the hole.
If I'm playing a "9", he should stroke every other hole, not on holes 15,16,17 and 18 because the golf chairman thinks these are the hardest holes.(or a computer has decided they have the largest differential)
Many reasons why this is true, but one is that the weaker player can get closed out before he gets to use his strokes.
Presses are another reason.


It would seem to me that "easy stretches" or hard stretches shouldn't unduly penalize one class of player over another, and can just be enjoyed as the holes that they are.
Giving shots proportionately, or spread out, mitigates this, as opposed to making the weaker play go a stretch of holes(the "easier" or higher differential ones) with no shots, where the stronger player is going to pile on.

[Tom_Doak]

Good comments Kyle, Tom.
IMHO handicap strokes should be allocated proportionately, with very little regard for the "difficulty" of the hole.
If I'm playing a "9", he should stroke every other hole, not on holes 15,16,17 and 18 because the golf chairman thinks these are the hardest holes.(or a computer has decided they have the largest differential)
Many reasons why this is true, but one is that the weaker player can get closed out before he gets to use his strokes.
Presses are another reason.


It would seem to me that "easy stretches" or hard stretches shouldn't unduly penalize one class of player over another, and can just be enjoyed as the holes that they are.
Giving shots proportionately, or spread out, mitigates this, as opposed to making the weaker play go a stretch of holes(the "easier" or higher differential ones) with no shots, where the stronger player is going to pile on.

This is fine for match play, but it would not be well received in the UK or Australia where many competitions are at Stableford, and "net par" is an important metric.  [Even though I recognize that a net birdie on #17 and a net bogey on #18 generates the same number of Stableford points as two net pars.]

[Thomas Dai]

Some (more enlightened?) UK courses have 2 x SI's. One for use in matchplay and another for use in stableford.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Some (more enlightened?) UK courses have 2 x SI's. One for use in matchplay and another for use in stableford.
atb

They do that in Australia, too.  If you are getting one stroke in a match you get it at the 8th hole, even if it's a 150-yard par-3.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Some (more enlightened?) UK courses have 2 x SI's. One for use in matchplay and another for use in stableford.
atb

They do that in Australia, too.  If you are getting one stroke in a match you get it at the 8th hole, even if it's a 150-yard par-3.

Uff, another complicated programming quirk to add to the wiki. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Nothing wrong with an easy hole once in a while, and for many public courses, maybe there should be 18 of them in a row, LOL.


One thing a designer should consider is the effect on pace of play, and flow.  A difficult hole after that stretch is likely to back up play.  It is always better to follow a par 3 with an easy hole, or at least an easy tee shot, to get those players away to reduce the backup.


And, as Jeff W notes, there are different types of difficult holes.  Manhattan CC in Kansas had a front nine that called for all fades, and a back nine that called for all draws, so those who could draw could actually fall behind and have hope to catch up, and the faders knew they had to get up early.  It made for some interesting matches according to long time members.  Generally speaking, I think most gca's tend to mix up hard and easy a bit better, but it isn't always possible.  You can take a short hole and add hazards, but a really long par 4 is probably pretty tough for most players even with no hazards.

[jeffwarne]

Some (more enlightened?) UK courses have 2 x SI's. One for use in matchplay and another for use in stableford.
atb

They do that in Australia, too.  If you are getting one stroke in a match you get it at the 8th hole, even if it's a 150-yard par-3.

Sounds like they have a good system to me.
predicting where someone "needs" a stroke is a fool's errand.


Obviously I was referring to match play in both of my listed scenarios, but as Tom points out, it(mostly) all comes out in the wash.
A stroke used for a net par vs. a net birdie all comes out in the wash in a true Stableford.


Not so in some modified Stablefords (which I happen to dislike, especially when there are -3 for a double bogie, which really slows down the game(defeating the purpose) when a net bogie putt(-1 vs.-3) becomes far more(twice as )important as net par putt

[Charlie Goerges]

I'm a little perplexed by this discussion. I feel like how difficult or easy a hole is varies widely. If we ask a higher-handicapper 'what is a hard hole for you?', they will probably mention water and length. To me that's just low golf IQ talking. Because of the severity, architects seem to give a lot of leeway to water, and length is just an ego tax in relation to par. If a higher-handicapper is playing a 470-yard hole, either it's a par 5 or it's often going to be a stroke hole. In either event they should be playing it as a three-shot hole.


It's funny, because someone mentioned a few holes at ANGC, with 11 being hard and (say) 13 being easy. They're both a 3-shot hole for me (from the Masters tees). Given the distance difference and the bailout available, 11 would be easier for me. It's a weird conversation.

[Kyle Harris]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

So do you think it's fine to have the handicap holes bunched?  I was always told it was better to spread them out, but I suppose it was the good players who were telling me that!

Not necessarily.

In a sense, handicap stroke allocation is another tool to curate an interesting match. Really, the "middle" allocations are the least impactful since the matches with a handicap difference between players of 7-13 are usually determined just as much on the non-stroke holes as the stroke holes. A scratch player against a 10 handicap is going to have to work hard over the course of the match with little regard to the stroke holes and that 10-handicap is just as likely to throw away a stroke hole as they are to throw away a non-stroke hole.

I believe stroke allocations should be on holes where the bogey-marker has a good chance of beating/halving the scratch through thoughtful play avoiding a penalty stroke. Since the slope rating likely gives the bogey-marker a few holes where they'd get two against the scratch you may create a situation where the scratch absolutely must make birdie.

Also contrary to popular understanding but a few of the last stroke holes should be on the more difficult holes, too. No sense in wasting a shot for the bogey-marker on a hole they're likely to mess up anyway.

At least one of the Par 3s should be a single digit allocation.

[Sean_A]

It's a good thing clubs decided their own stroke allocation. I would hate that decided by how guys bet.

I think I am more in favour stroke allocation for matchplay generally following easiest to hardest. I figure handicap players will bogey the hard holes.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

And then there’s the argument, discussion, about whether in matchplay stroke allocations should commence on hole SI 1 or hole SI 18?
Atb

[Mike_Trenham]

For very good players these easier stretches can pose the biggest mental challenges as if you don’t take advantage it can be very frustrating.

[Mike Wagner]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

Good comments Kyle, Tom.
IMHO handicap strokes should be allocated proportionately, with very little regard for the "difficulty" of the hole.
If I'm playing a "9", he should stroke every other hole, not on holes 15,16,17 and 18 because the golf chairman thinks these are the hardest holes.(or a computer has decided they have the largest differential)
Many reasons why this is true, but one is that the weaker player can get closed out before he gets to use his strokes.
Presses are another reason.

This is an interesting point. I wrote to the USGA during rules commentary and proposed that if a match was dormie, strokes automatically moved to the next hole. Example, player A is giving 1 stroke to player B and the 18th hole is handicap 1. If player A is 3 up with 3 to play, the stroke moves from 18 to 16. It's obviously given up on 18, but provides the equity that wasn't reached.

[Tim Martin]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

Good comments Kyle, Tom.
IMHO handicap strokes should be allocated proportionately, with very little regard for the "difficulty" of the hole.
If I'm playing a "9", he should stroke every other hole, not on holes 15,16,17 and 18 because the golf chairman thinks these are the hardest holes.(or a computer has decided they have the largest differential)
Many reasons why this is true, but one is that the weaker player can get closed out before he gets to use his strokes.
Presses are another reason.

This is an interesting point. I wrote to the USGA during rules commentary and proposed that if a match was dormie, strokes automatically moved to the next hole. Example, player A is giving 1 stroke to player B and the 18th hole is handicap 1. If player A is 3 up with 3 to play, the stroke moves from 18 to 16. It's obviously given up on 18, but provides the equity that wasn't reached.

Mike-I like the idea in theory but think it moves the goal posts. Did you receive any feedback? Thanks.

[Mike Wagner]

The one thing about an easy stretch is that it places a lot of pressure on the golfer to turn it on right there and make some birdies [or pars], while then having a different mindset for the rest of the course. That's not easy to switch on and off.

This can't be stated enough. It's also why handicapping holes should take this into account in order to put pressure on the better player as opposed to bailing out the lesser player.

Better players are almost infinitely better at mitigating risk as opposed to accepting it and overcoming it. Easy holes or handicap allocations skew this curve big time in stroke or match play, respectively.

Good comments Kyle, Tom.
IMHO handicap strokes should be allocated proportionately, with very little regard for the "difficulty" of the hole.
If I'm playing a "9", he should stroke every other hole, not on holes 15,16,17 and 18 because the golf chairman thinks these are the hardest holes.(or a computer has decided they have the largest differential)
Many reasons why this is true, but one is that the weaker player can get closed out before he gets to use his strokes.
Presses are another reason.

This is an interesting point. I wrote to the USGA during rules commentary and proposed that if a match was dormie, strokes automatically moved to the next hole. Example, player A is giving 1 stroke to player B and the 18th hole is handicap 1. If player A is 3 up with 3 to play, the stroke moves from 18 to 16. It's obviously given up on 18, but provides the equity that wasn't reached.

Mike-I like the idea in theory but think it moves the goal posts. Did you receive any feedback? Thanks.

Tim -


No, I didn't receive any feedback on that one.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()