[Rob Marshall]

Can you have a good hole where a tree within 50 to 75 yards of the tee forces you to either it a draw or a fade no matter what shot shape the hole may require?

[Charlie Goerges]

So for example, a hole where a fade is the best play, but there's a tree forcing you to hit a draw? In that case, I doubt anyone would consider it a good hole, at least until the tree was removed.

[Ben Hollerbach]

If the hole did not prohibit one shot shape, but a player who hit the opposite shot shape would greatly benefit, that could be a good hole. Something like the 13th at Augusta National comes to mind.
If the hole forced all players to play a specific shot shape and the penalty not to do so was a ball knocked down by a tree less than 100 yards off the tee, That would presumably be too substantial of a penalty for most players.

[Rob Marshall]

The hole I'm thinking about is a dogleg right but it is possible to play the hole with a draw. You may end up in the rough but with the decade golf one shot shape playing philosophy in mind, you can do it. IF the tee box is on the right side there is a tree that over hangs enough that it will impact the start line you need to play the hole with a draw. I don't mind being forced to shape a shot but when the tree is only 50 to 75 yards off the tee I think it may be a bit much.


I'm looking at this as a player not an architect. I'm probably all wet.

[Michael Felton]

I don't like holes where there is no choice. Bethpage Blue has two holes in a row that can be like that. The 3rd is a par three where if the tee is on the left side, there is a tree such that a fade has to gamble with the tree. Then the 4th is a par 5 with two tee boxes. The one on the right means you either have to hit a banana slice or about a 7 iron. I dislike both of them a lot. Then there is a hole like 9 on yellow there which definitely encourages a draw, but you don't have to draw it. You can hit a fade, you'll just be in the right rough if you do.


Speaking as a player, I don't want holes that prevent me from having any choice.

[Thomas Dai]

Nah, just bomb it coz these days angles don’t matter any more! Allegedly.


Atb

[Ian Mackenzie]

Can you have a good hole where a tree within 50 to 75 yards of the tee forces you to either it a draw or a fade no matter what shot shape the hole may require?

So, then these things happen, what then...?...:


1. Lightning strikes the tree and knocks it down
2. Tree gets some local disease
3. Tree dies naturally
4. Next resto-redo has the retained GCA targeting said tree for termination.


What happens to your "good hole"?


Trees should not determine strategy, just tactics.
I would guess that 90%+ of recreational players cannot shape shots "on command" so that tree is a penal nuisance just waiting to be...ahem...remediated.

[Michael Moore]

To answer the title question, there are a great many touring professionals who can't gently work the ball on command. I have certainly never played with anyone who could.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the tree 180-200 off the tee (apex of both horizontal and vertical bend) is fine to encourage a fade or draw.  Since not everyone can hit those on command, I preferred to leave a very wide fw (Augusta 13 is a good example as mentioned) so that a straight shot or gentle curve in the opposite direction can still find the fw, usually with a 20-50 yard penalty on the approach shot, which is enough without supplemental hazards on the outside of the dl.


So, you aren't forced to play a shot not in your bag, but if you can't you have a disadvantage.  That sounds fair enough to me.


As to trees closer to the tee that force one shot or another, it is funny but low handicappers always moan about those more than high handicappers, even if the tree is on the left, forcing a slicer to aim right, potentially putting them way out of bounds.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played with some college kids a few years ago. We were standing on a tee and said, "This calls for a little right-to-left shot." "I don't have that shot. I only know how to hit a high fade. Our teacher told us just to learn one shot, but learn it well." This is probably true, but it bothers me. Learning to hit a variety of shots is part of the game's thrills.

[Tom_Doak]

Phrased another way, I don't mind a tree positioned so that it REWARDS a player who can shape his shot appropriately, as long as the player who can't shape it that way can still hit driver into the fairway.  If the "wrong" shaped shot has to be a layup, that's probably overkill.

[Rob Marshall]

I played with some college kids a few years ago. We were standing on a tee and said, "This calls for a little right-to-left shot." "I don't have that shot. I only know how to hit a high fade. Our teacher told us just to learn one shot, but learn it well." This is probably true, but it bothers me. Learning to hit a variety of shots is part of the game's thrills.

Tommy, I don’t recall the exact % but I think it was that even tour pros double cross themselves 25% of the time. I agree you need to be able to hit a variety of shots but the current wisdom says to stay with your stock shot shape unless you have to work it the other way.

[Michael Morandi]

Pros are taught to take one side of the rough out of play under pressure. While some can shape it both ways, most are uncomfortable doing so. The game is less interesting. The art is virtually gone.

[Tom_Doak]

Pros are taught to take one side of the rough out of play under pressure. While some can shape it both ways, most are uncomfortable doing so. The game is less interesting. The art is virtually gone.

The pros who can do it will all tell you that the equipment has made it harder to play those shots and (off the record) they wish it would change back.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pros are taught to take one side of the rough out of play under pressure. While some can shape it both ways, most are uncomfortable doing so. The game is less interesting. The art is virtually gone.

Michael,


A while back I played a round with a young guy that played on the Nike Tour for a couple years. Of course, he was a far better golfer than I was, but he actually expressed some jealousy that I grew up playing persimmon and was more naturally inclined to try to work the ball.


Everything he hit was dead straight and long, but much as I wish I could do that, I’m not sure doing that every time would be that interesting.


Tom Doak had it right. Working the ball shouldn’t necessarily be a requirement, but it should offer a reward.


Tim

[A.G._Crockett]

Phrased another way, I don't mind a tree positioned so that it REWARDS a player who can shape his shot appropriately, as long as the player who can't shape it that way can still hit driver into the fairway.  If the "wrong" shaped shot has to be a layup, that's probably overkill.

Perfectly said.

[Mark_Fine]

I am not a big fan of being forced to hit a certain kind of shot but once again, everything in moderation.  Is it ok if an architect designs a hole/shot that asks the golfer to carry a tee shot or an approach shot over a water hazard or potentially extricate themselves from a very deep bunker (how deep is too deep) or putt over or around a large internal mound or through a large depression in a green, …, the list of challenges goes on and on.  I hope this isn’t a fairness thing because golf is definitely not fair not should it be.  That would ruin everything about the game

As long as a perfectly executed 4I from 200 yards to five feet counts the same as a 6” putt, golf will never be fair

[cary lichtenstein]

I was a decent player in my day, always around a 4 handicap. I could hit a draw, never could hit a fade. If a 4 has trouble, what about the other 99% of the players? Bad design

[Mark_Fine]

By the way Rob, it does sound like a silly tree (guessing it was not planted by the architect) that forces a shot “that is not required by the shape of the hole”.  But trees like other hazards are what makes the game interesting.  No hazards (or challenges to overcome) equals boring golf for most players.  Finding the right balance that satisfies everyone isn’t always easy (pretty much is impossible).  Sadly I have played with course raters/golfers that will diss a course if it doesn’t have the same number of doglegs right as it does doglegs left. Some don’t think that is fair

Two famous quotes about hazards:

From Donald Ross:

“Often the highest recommendation of a bunker is when it is criticized. There is no such thing as a misplaced bunker. Regardless of where a bunker may be, it is the business of the player to avoid it.”

From Alister MacKenzie:

“It is much too large a subject to go into the placing of hazards but I would like to emphasize a fundamental principle. It is that no hazard is unfair wherever it is placed.”

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


I think you could also find a quote from one of those Old Scots to the effect of, trees have no place on a golf course.  That said, Mac, Ross and others eventually decided that in the natural treed landscapes across much of America, they probably could be incorporated.


Tom said what I was trying to say more eloquently, and I think Mac also said that it is a fallacy that hazards are there to punish, but rather, they are typically placed to encourage (perhaps certain types of) good play.  I tended to place trees at the apex of their flight and height, i.e., about 180-200 yards (70% of total distance represents the typical apex and curve bend) to make it easy to curve around to "position A" thus encouraging that shot, while leaving enough fw on the other side to find. 


A tree about 80 yards off the tee as described in the OP are more penal than strategic.


Cheers.

[jeffwarne]

To answer the title question, there are a great many touring professionals who can't gently work the ball on command. I have certainly never played with anyone who could.

I guess it depends upon how you define "great many".
I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming that just because they don't, doesn't mean they can't...

[jeffwarne]

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()