Driving vs. Second Shot Courses

[Dan_Callahan]

I was just watching Playing Lessons With The Pros with Jim Furyk. He made an interesting point about the course he was playing. He called it "a good, demanding driving course," while his home course was more of "a second-shot course" with challenge primarily in the greens.

It got me thinking about whether all courses could be so categorized. It certainly is true with respect to two of the great public courses in New England. Taconic is a very demanding second-shot course, with very fast, sloping greens. (It is far less of a challenge off the tee.) Conversly, Crumpin Fox is an extremely tight driving course that puts a premium on accuracy off the tee. It is not, however, an extremely difficult second-shot course.

If this categorization holds up, do the great courses of the world fall predominently to one side—or is there an even distribution? Augusta, I think, would be a classic second shot course (at least in its original construction). Perhaps Pinehurst could also be labeled as such. But what about Pebble? TOC? Cypress?

[kwl]

Pete Dye discusses this in the foreword of Nicklaus by Design. Subsequently, JWN mentions the same...saying that was the way he approached the game (that is "second shot").

[David_Tepper]

Tom Doak's Confidential Guide discusses the OC Lake Course vs. San Fran GC somewhat along those lines. The Lake Course is very much a test of driving, especially as the tall trees make the fairways sometimes look even narrower than they actually are. If you are not driving the ball well, you will spend at lot of time punching out back into the fairway well short of the green. If you put the ball in the center of every green, you rarely have more than a 25ft. putt.

On the other hand, SFGC has a much more wide-open feel and you have to hit a poor drive not to be able to advance the ball up towards the green. The greens are a good deal larger, so your shot into the green needs to be in the same quadrant of the green to have a 25ft. putt.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I agree that there are courses we could label as "driving" or "second-shot" courses.  It has been my experience, however, that second shot holes are also demanding driving holes.  The drive can make an enourmous differece to the severity of the second shot.  Tight driving holes do not necessarily mean that accuracy is more important than courses that have wide fairways.  Probably the best know example is the road hole at TOC.  Hit your drive left and hold the green is almost impossible.  The drive must be hit as far right as possible to leave a somewhat safer avenue to the green.  For this reason I tend to think that "second-shot" courses are more strategic and interesting than "driving" courses that demand accuracy of the tee to stay out of the woods or heather etc.  That being said there are few things more satisfying than hitting a low running hook around a tree and see it run up on the green 180 yards away.  

[Tommy Williamsen]

I brought this thread back because I thought it deserves more replies.

[sammy66]

From limited experience, I feel "second shot courses" are markedly more interesting and satisfying than tests of driving skill.  I have played Taconic a few times, and approaches to greens such as 3, 6, or 13 there, you are completely screwed if you miss your mark by just a tad.  It seems to me also that the second shot on a hole (assumed par 4) provides more options than the drive on Most courses.  Do you shoot for a tucked pin?  Do hit the fat of the green?  Do you miss the green purposefully for a straightforward up and down?  Demanding second shot courses like Taconic throw this question in your face over and over throughout the 18 holes.  While demanding driving holes seems more like a test of physical skill, the second shot, in my opinion, is More of a test of mental ability and skill combined, and challenge there creates a great course.

[TEPaul]

Interesting and fundamental subject!

I think so-called "second shot" courses are probably the more interesting and certainly the most accomodating of all levels in a general sense. In the match play format, and in a hole by hole sense, they "keep the game going" better than the highly demanding driving course. Architecture that keeps opponents in the hole as long as possible is much of what the old fashioned tenet of putting a premium on the heroic recovery shot was all about. Highly demanding driving courses sort of nix the heroic recovery.

In a certain way "second shot" courses and architecture are or can be more sophisticated too. The reason being it creates "whole hole" strategy better instead of individual and incremental shot strategy.

Max Behr had an interesting phrase for these types of distinctions in architecture and strategies. A "second shot" course he was inclined to call "indirect taxation" while highly demanding driving courses he was inclined to call "direct taxation".

I'm not certain that one type is better than the other and if one thinks about most good courses they have a little of both throughout their 18 holes creating probably what we generally refer to as variety.

I believe modern golfers, unfortunately, have almost come to expect "direct taxation" architecture for some reason--maybe it's just what they've been given in the modern age. In a sense the golfer basically must solve the first problem before he can reasonably go on to the next problem. I think this is too bad as it creates a situation where golf holes start to lack a certain unity of strategic considerations.

[Chris_Clouser]

I'm curious if anyone thinks that some course have changed their "categorization" over the years.  In going around Southern Hills this fall I was surprised how the course is perhaps a much more difficult driving test than it was when designed.  With a much larger emphasis on the tee shot for the pros today than say in 1958.  But for the everyday player it is much more of a second shot course.  Would this be a compliment?  

As for the modern day player, I think it goes back to the increase in the power game today.  They love to be challenged off of the tee with bunkers and water and their oversized heads, but if they clear it they feel as if they should be entitled to a simple approach shot.  I've seen a lot of courses like this in my area.