Strategy: Angle of Approach.

[DMoriarty]

One method of creating a golf hole with strategic choices is 1) create greens which provide different considerations for approaches from different angles; and 2)  Create fairway's which are wide enough to accomodate a wide spectrum of approach angles.  

One famous example of such architecture is Riviera 10 where the avenues of approach span over almost 90 degrees.  Also, my home course, Rustic Canyon, has a number of holes with a very large spectrum of angles from which to approach.  

What are some other examples of holes which provide a wide spectrum of angles of approach?   Is the feature effective on these courses?

Can there be too broad a spectrum of angles of approach?  If so, what are the drawbacks?    

Any other thoughts on this architectural technique?  

[Ramon T. Hernandez]

Certainly, clubs of a certain era will lend themselves to such "approach" by virtue of bunkers, hazards, and fairway width.

Additionally, regions (and there is some temporal consideration/influence too: more early courses in the GB, IRE, eastern USA) may favor this element of design. Unlikely to find the same variety of options in the parkland as you might on the linksland. Cutting trees and pulling stumps takes time and costs mucho dinero (particularly in the older days), hence fairway width would be limited on heavily forested plots. That said, I am aware that many of our forests have a birthday in the 60s-70s when tree planting was the rage...fairways have been narrowed on some of the older courses and bunkers that were in the fairway, are now fixed in the rough.

Designer/architect predilection.

BOOOYAAAA

[A_Clay_Man]

David, not exactly what your asking about but I feel it somehow relavent. And that is how to create these angles on a narrower field. By angleing the green in different vectors for different "sections" even a fifty yard wide corridor will place strategic value on which side to play, depending on pin position.

Pinon Hill's greens fit this description.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

NGLA has a large and excellent schematic showing various routes of play on each hole and the angles of attack into the greens.

I believe the schematic used to hang in the basement and now hangs in the pro shop.

Studying angles of attack on a hole, and understanding how they evolve can often be best done in reverse, from the greens back to the tees.

[TEPaul]

David:

One of the most interesting holes I've ever seen for an apparently enormous angle of approach and huge fairway width around the green is NGLA's famous little 17th. However, of all the times I've played the course I never quite understood what all that area out to the right was for as no one, it seemed to me, would intentionally try to cross over the mid fairway bunkers to the right side of the fairway from the tee we play from on the left. Then the other day I went far to the right and looked at the hole from the intermediate tees over there and it all made sense. I suspect those tees on the right must have been the orginal tee. All the multi driving options from over there come beautifully into play including that entire right side right of those mid-fairway bunkers. Unfortunately, there's no room at all to go back with a tee from over on the right and the hole is shorter from that tee. I'd use it more for good players, though, as the options are so interesting from the right and there's a more reasonable chance from there for a long player to try to take it directly over the convex bunker and the smaller bunkers behind it fronting the green! But that's about the most fairway width and widest angle of approach I've ever seen on  a golf hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Who told you about that ?
You couldn't have figured that out on your own  

I agree, the play from the right side tee would seem to be down the right side.  Playing a tee shot to the extreme left of the fairway would seem awkward, difficult and not worth the risk/reward when compared to the right side tee shot.

[TEPaul]

Pat;

I don't agree with that at all and it doesn't take much to stand on that right tee and notice that a long player can basically play way down the left hand portion of that fairway. Awkward angle to the left side--my ass--he'd be playing down a slot from that angle if he hit the ball less than 175 yds he'd probably be past those mid-fairway bunkers. From that angle a long player would practically have to duck hook the ball to get it into that left side diagonal bunker and those mid-fairway bunkers would be something of a non-factor for him if he was going down the left side.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

"People often get annoyed with St. Andrews but they do not get bored with playing there.  Where there is a definite fairway and definite rough, there is less variety.  Bang, bang, bang--right down the middle:  that is the only game.  There is little strategy of tactics:  no flanking movements, only frontal attacks."
Bernard Darwin, American Golfer, 1922

This guy is becoming my second favorite writer.

[TEPaul]

Lynn:

Whose your favorite writer---Max or a guy named Geoff?

[Doug Siebert]

I think having multiple angles of approach is very important for par 5s to make the second shot interesting (when played as a three shotter)  The problem with par 5s seeming dull is usually caused by having to play your second down a narrow corridor where you are only worried about hitting it as far as you can while keeping it straight.

If there's a lot of room on one or both sides for the second shot, you can add a lot of strategy for where you might want to leave it depending on where the pin is, and avoid having people feel like they have to leave a full sand wedge to spin it for a tight pin position.  It is especially interesting if the rough isn't terribly long, so you add strategies of deliberately playing into the rough for a better angle and/or making an upper tier pin position more accessible.

[TEPaul]

Doug:

It seems like your example of a good par 5 describes the wide fairway area in front of Rustic Canyon's #13 well. Perhaps because of that the hole should be played from shorter tees. There was a time when the hole was planned to be even longer than it is and I think shortening it up some with that massive width in front of the green with that interesting center bunker made real sense in the way of third shot (or second shot) options and problems and solutions.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Interesting, you prefer to hit at a narrow slot from the right side angle when the slot from that angle is limited by a backstop of heavy, deep rough, with water further left.  Whereas, from the left, the slot almost goes to the green, with those features flanking the left side of the fairway.

How about the next time we're at NGLA together, I buy a couple of dozen balls, put you on the right side tee, and wager on the success of each one of your tee shots as you attempt to hit to the left side slot with a driver.

You do understand that the wager will be made prior to each driving attempt, and not after it.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

David, TOC, TOC and more of the TOC. It is one of the reasons I hold it in the high esteem that I do. Pacific Dunes has alot of this as well. Tom could guide us as to how much of the fairway width is strategic and how much is to allow for the wind. Cuscowilla has a number of holes with very wide fairways to provide strategic options as does Barona Creek.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

From the shorter right tee the fairway on the left is no more restrictive to me than it is from the left tee. I don't believe I'd contemplate hitting the ball all the way down to the left along side the green or what's to the left of it--I don't hit it that far. And the benefit from the right tee is you don't have to cross over those mid fairway bunkers if you wanted to hit the tee shot down to the right side of the fairway. From the left tee I've never hit the tee shot anywhere near the right side of the faiway and never tried to because I'd have to cross right over those mid-fairway bunkers!

There's something very weird and strange about the way you describe things as awkward and restrictive. And since there is something weird about how you do that I'd also like to recommend that the fairway to the left of those bunkers on GCGC's #16 should also be restored!

[DMoriarty]

Certainly, clubs of a certain era will lend themselves to such "approach" by virtue of bunkers, hazards, and fairway width.

Ramon,  I wonder if the modern equipment and the aerial attack haven't made the use of bunkers and hazards less effective in creating strategy.  Many around this board (me not included) think that with modern distance control, there is rarely ever need to worry about bunkers and hazards around greens.   While I think they have an exaggerated notion of the ease of the game,  I do wonder if green contours (sometimes in conjuction with bunkers and hazards) do a better job of suggesting strategic alternatives.  
_______________________

AClayman, I definitely agree that green design and contouring can suggest different strategies from a narrower space.  However, I dont think that architects need go to the extremes of Pinion Hill's greens to acheive this.  Dont get me wrong, hile I havent played Pinion in years, I very much enjoyed the course.  But to my mind the greens were the weak link.  Too abrupt a deliniation between the "sections" or "greens within greens," and also to much repitition of the three teir pattern.  But that of course is just my opinion.  
___________________


Doug,
I agree regarding par 5s, but would even extend the reasoning to playing par 5's in two shots.  Most definitely, the angle between the preferred line and the less prefered line is more acute, but ample distance can provide angular advantages.  Also, width can create interest in this situation if ground contour is used to benefit a well placed drive with a favorable kick, or improved angle.  
_________________

TEPaul,  I agree that RC 13 is a good example of using width to create interest on a 3 shot par 5.  I am confused, however, by your discussion of this being so in part because the hole is shorter than originally planned.  Perhaps you are referring to placement of the tee shot? At its current length, the long hitters often play the hole as a two shot hole.  Placement and trajectory of the tee shot makes a big difference in determining the ease of the next shot.   I'll try to post a few pics of the hole later.  
__________________________
Patrick and TEPaul.  I imagine that one could spend a lifetime exploring the different avenues of approach on most the holes at NGLA.  Oh, to be so lucky.  

Your disagreement regarding 17 might be a good example of one reason width based architecture can be so compelling--  If the hole is interesting enough there is rarely one answer of how to play the hole, or even how to play to a particular pin on a hole.    Or it could just be an example of you guys not getting along.  
________________
John,
I wish I could concur with you regarding TOC, but I havent yet had the pleasure.  

But I do agree regarding Pac Dunes.  I too would be interested in hearing from Tom D.; whether the width was built for strategy or the wind.  My guess is that these two considerations went hand in hand and that this is usually the case--  

Before this winter, I thought of the width at Rustic Canyon as being mostly about strategy, but this winter the wind has blown so much and so hard, that the width is necessary to make the course playable.  

This seems a big advantage of width.  With not only makes the game more challenging and interesting (assuming good greens) for the better player, but it also makes the game more accomodating in rough weather and for lesser players.   A plus plus on my scorecard.  

[TEPaul]

DavidM said about Pat and me;

"Your disagreement regarding 17 might be a good example of one reason width based architecture can be so compelling--  If the hole is interesting enough there is rarely one answer of how to play the hole, or even how to play to a particular pin on a hole. Or it could just be an example of you guys not getting along."  

David:

It doesn't have a thing to do with width based architecture or quality of architecture or anything else about architecture to get me and Pat Mucci to disagree. We can just as easily disagree on any hole in the world (on here anyway!). It's really just a mathematical thing though. Pat Mucci is wrong app 98% of the time so obviously I must disagree with him almost always. But I'm the way of the light, the way of the right and the way of the truth in architecture and Pat is still in that stage when he's struggling to understand what his diapers are for! He is a very argumentative little tadpole though!

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Early in life, I was taught the importance of letting the other guy think he's right or winning ....... sometimes.

P.S.  Just to give you some perspective on TEPaul,
       TEPaul thinks 2 % milk is 98 % fat

TEPaul,

I look forward to teeing it up with you at NGLA this year.
Let's do it one afternoon during the week when we can spend all the time necessary to study strategy, and then place our theories to the ultimate test, the play of the golf course.

In the interim, do me a favor, take out the book,
"Scotland's Gift" look at the schematic, the map at the end of the book.  Look at the tees to the right on # 17.
They are marked with a "T"  then look at the angle to the slot and how quickly you run out of fairway in that slot coming from the right side tee, especially in light of the forward location of the right side tees.  After doing so, you may want to amend or refute your own theory.

But, I won't count your erroneous opinion against your already paultry batting average, provided you rescind or revoke it within 48 hours.  

DMoriarty,

Hopefully, we'll be able to schedule this with sufficient notice such that you can  attend for the purpose of judging our findings and refereeing our debates.

[Doug Siebert]

DMoriarty,

You are of course absolutely right that my thoughts about par 5s would extend to those played in two shots, but to me that's just a subset of the "long par 4".  I think short par 4s work better with width for the same reason as the three shot par 5 because of the wider potential angles of approach to the green.  Not short enough to be driveable, but short enough that you can have a decision between hitting a driver to get yourself into partial lob wedge range or hitting an iron to leave yourself a full sand wedge.  Give the player a 75 yard wide area (which again doesn't necessarily have to be fairway, the rough just can't be penal) and a great green complex that has 160 degrees of potential approaches with a variety of strategies depending on the pin and you'll have a great hole, where you may want length simply to take advantage of a particular angle for that day's pin rather than the typical boring reason of getting a shorter shot.

And the USGA would come along and narrow the fairway to 28 yards and grow the rough to 6" for the US Open to defend par