Options, are they figments of your imagination and limited by your abilities ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Options, Options, Options,

Over and over I hear this mantra.

Mostly a figment of your imagination, options are usually limited to only the more talented of golfers.

What options exist on the tee shot at # 6 at NGLA for the average 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30 handicapper.

Come to think of it, what practical options exist for any 20, 25 or 30 handicapper ?

In order to have an option there has to be a reasonable chance to execute the alternative shots, and for many if not most golfers, the ability to execute an alternate shot does not exist.  Hence, for all practical purposes, the option does not exist.

Realistically, options, in practice, are mostly a figment of the imagination, the domain of the better golfer, and have almost become extinct.

[Jeff_Mingay]

On the contrary, Pat. It seems to me these days, tee shot options are irrelevant to Tour pros. When you're coming into every green with a short iron, angles aren't as important as they are when approaching with long clubs.

And, how does a weak player improve? By attempting to play different types of shots, to various positions on the course, whether it be driving to a certain point to gain an advantageous angle into a spcific hole location, or attempting to play an approach to a particular portion of the putting surface, so as to leave a less difficult putt than otherwise.

I guess I don't understand the point of your post. I mean, there were terrible golfers playing great courses during the interwar period, when design strategy was paramount. Smart players, regardless of their skill level, realize there are advantageous positions to play to, and thus I think they at least attempt to make those strokes.

[Joe Hancock]

Why have they become extinct? Are there less better golfers to exercise those ficticious options?

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I can at least see some of what you are saying.  For a 30 handicapper who can't even get the ball airborn, and merely goes out on the golf course to play the role of "toppy the clown" with one duffed shot after the other, options may be beyond that one's imagination.  I am not going to go search in "the Spirit of St Andrews", but didn't Dr. MacKenzie tell the story of the poor duff that was playing a match with a rather accomplished golfer at CPC and at the 16th. The duff stated he could win the hole with just his putter.  The golfer proceeded to knock two in a row into the drink, and the duff putted something like 6 times around the walking path onto the green and made a one putt for a 7 to win the hole...

I wish I could answer your question for NGLA 6th regarding what options there are for the high handicapp.  But, in general, I think that particularly in match play, options presented by variety of design considerations comes to the forefront on great courses and offers a higher handicapper an alternative to flirtation with disaster that sometimes evens out the duffs chances against the more bold yet better skilled player.  

Even the duff hits it just right sometimes.  If he can see the alternative and visualize the shot he wishes to make, and he has a basic understanding of how to set up to make that cut, or draw, or low runner, or high soft landing flopper - he can at least TRY!  Just making one in a dozen brings that fellow back to try again and creates the desire to get better.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Limited by distance and direction! the diagonal forced carry is one example that utilizes both for high cappers. Examples: the first two par 5's at Cypress point. Pete Dye's "Unter der Linden" at BWR. Desmond Muirhead's has one diagonal magnificiant carry at Quail ranch.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

On the contrary, Pat. It seems to me these days, tee shot options are irrelevant to Tour pros. When you're coming into every green with a short iron, angles aren't as important as they are when approaching with long clubs.

You can't look at the issue solely in the context of the 140 greatest golfers in the world.   They represent a miniscule percentage of the world's golfers.  View the issue in the context of amateur golf, golf as it's played by both the members of golf clubs and the green fee payors of the world.

And, how does a weak player improve? By attempting to play different types of shots, to various positions on the course, whether it be driving to a certain point to gain an advantageous angle into a spcific hole location, or attempting to play an approach to a particular portion of the putting surface, so as to leave a less difficult putt than otherwise.

I would totally disagree.  Golfers don't improve by attempting shots beyond their ability, they improve through practice and subsequent application

I guess I don't understand the point of your post. I mean, there were terrible golfers playing great courses during the interwar period, when design strategy was paramount. Smart players, regardless of their skill level, realize there are advantageous positions to play to, and thus I think they at least attempt to make those strokes.

Jeff, a smart, or a dumb player may recognize a prefered or hazardous route, but if the ability to execute is lacking, for all practical purposes, options fail to exist for that golfer.

JHancock,

I think you have to reread my initial post and bifurcate the issue.  I stated that in practice, options are primarily the domain of the better player, and in many cases extinct for the much higher handicap.

RJDaley,

I think that there are safer routes for the higher handicap to attempt to play, to the point that it almost becomes the only route that the higher handicap can play.

At one point, the aerial game almost entirely negates the higher handicaps ability to "roll" the ball to the green, leaving them no options.

The 6th at NGLA is an island green surrounded by sand and scrub, it is a form of "pass"/"fail" architecture, with no practical option for any level of golfer.

The 8th hole at NGLA, especially the approach to the green might be another example of little or no option for the higher handicap.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
The better player has the ability to make use of the widest possible spectum of available options on any given hole, conversely, they use fewer of them.  
The 19 handicapper (average male player) can make use of fewer but needs the widest spectrum.

I would tend to believe that option filled holes are an endangered species, based on the percentage of the number of courses being built today without them vs. during the GA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Kennedy,

I think we're in sync.

[SPDB]

Pat -
I wholeheartedly agree with your premise, and it is question I have been asking since the early days of this site. I just found this post that I made about a year ago:

it never ceases to amaze me how much talk there is of strategic designs and how such and such a hole design requires you to put your tee shot here to give you a good look at the green, etc. But for how many of us does that matter, i.e. its great to talk about strategy in the abstract, but how many of us execute on it?

For a sizable percentage of the golfing public the concept of aiming a tee shot or approach means hitting the fairway or the green, and only to a miniscule portion does aiming mean hitting it to specific spots on the fairway or green.

That being said, the existence of options is still far preferable, irrespective of whether they are able to be utilized or not. The golfer should be forced to make a mental decision, however fanciful the realities of execution may be.

[Jeff Fortson]

Golf courses should be built with the "skilled" player in mind, not for the 20+ handicapper.  Why design a course that doesn't inspire you to become a better player?  If golf were meant to be easy and optionless, I would think that few would play the sport.  This is one of the problems I see in some architecture today.  

There are so many retirement community, dumbed-down courses being built that many people forget this game can be difficult and humbling.  This trend is flooding the market with the wrong image of what golf really is.  Golf should be as much of an inspiring and courageous endeavor as it is an enjoyable walk in the park.

I am not advocating that golf courses be built to be brutal, but they should be built with "options" in realtime play. Golf courses should be built on the principle or ideal that it should be played at a "skilled" level, IMHO.  Otherwise, why play?


Jeff F.

[Jim_Kennedy]

The genius of a hole with a variety of options is in the second chance they give when you don't hit it where you planned.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

For me options aren't exactly a figment of my imagination but they definitely are limited by my ability. One time at NGLA (it may even have been in qualifying) I had about 100 yards into #9 and although it was just some kind of wedge the idea of just hitting a little bump and run was just screaming at me  with that big opening and big green. I've never even practiced that shot and almost never tried it unless some kind of odd recovery but I had to try it so I took out a 6 iron with the intention of just sort of chipping it in there with a low bump and I hit it dead fat!!

But I've got to learn some of those cool ground game options no matter what. Another time at Royal County down I had about 50 yards into #16, the wind was howling about 35mph right to left and I told my caddie I was going to throw a 60 degree wedge straight up in the air. He said; "I don't think you should try that shot lad" but I told him I was really good at it and would play it very safe and aim about 10-15 yards right of the flag. I did just that and the last I saw that ball it was flying into the bushes well to the left of the green!!

I've got the imagination alright--just not that other thing!

[Brian_Gracely]

Pat,

I believe the change over the years is that the "Golden Age" architects created options for shorter players vs. longer players, and then decided when or if accuracy control should be a factor.  They didn't have the "off the hozel shank" or "laying sod over it" shot in mind for the "lesser player".  I believe they made some basic considerations about a player's skill level.

For most of the 20+ handicappers I play with, the issue of options still exists, but they usually aren't course-management savy enough to take advantage of them.  They try and play the same lines as the better players in their groups.  For most of these players, I could caddy for them and guarantee I'd take 5-7 strokes off their games by just recommending better course management.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Gracely,

I think the GA architects designed for a much narrower spectrum of golfer.

I also think that irrigation systems have had a dramatic impact, a negative one, on playing along the ground.

Jim Kennedy,

That's why wide fairways appeal to me, the provide a second chance for most golfers, allowing for recovery.

There is an interesting schematic that used to hang in the hallway that connected the locker rooms in the basement at
NGLA.  I believe it may now reside in the new pro shop.
That schematic showed two distinct routes for the play of the holes (except par 3's).  Those trying to make par or better could take one route, those trying to make bogie, could take another.  One of the beauties of NGLA is the route selection afforded to balls that don't hit their intended targeted areas off the tee or on the next shot.

TEPaul,

Your examples reinforce my theory, while the option may have been recognized by you, a superior player, the ability to execute the shot you mentally constructed, is limited by your level of golfing expertise, and as such, in reality, it may be an illusurory or non-existent option.

Jeff Fortson,

I agree.
I think most GA architects designed golf courses for the better player, that would, as a default, accomodate the weaker player.  But, I think, numerically, they faced a much narrower clientele.

[Mark_F]

Patrick Mucci;

Isn't one of the most bastardised notions in golf the notion that the "weaker" player should be accomodated?  
Why shoul
d they be?
If you aren't any good at a particular sport, and aren't particularly interested in improving, why should your thoughts and position come remotely into consideration?

This merely gives us the farcical notion that a course can be a great championship test, and suitable for the members at the same time.  

Which is always written about Royal Melbourne, except I doubt there are too many members there capable of shooting twenty under par.

Competence seems to undervalued in golf.  Possibly because it's much easier to believe you can "buy" a game than it is in all other sports?

[CHrisB]

So much of the discussion about options focuses on the single player: Does he choose Option A, B, or C, assuming he has the ability to take each route?

And there are some great holes (e.g., TOC #14) where the single player can choose a different route each time depending on the conditions.

But in many cases the single player will basically have his desired strategy set for a hole, and take that route most of the time unless conditions are extreme. (For example, on #17 TOC I'll take it over the wall off the tee and try to hit a running draw into the green almost every time.)

That's why it is also useful to discuss options focusing on the broad spectrum of golfers, from beginners to the elite. Even if every player comes to a hole and decides to play it the same basic way each time, that hole can still be a great one if it allows a broad range of players to stand on the tee and play to their strengths on the hole. The long hitter can play it one way, the short hitter another, the slicer another, the low-ball hitter another, etc.

I believe that the world's absolute best holes like TOC #14 offer the best of both worlds of options: that is (a) they offer multiple routes from which the single player can legitimately choose, and (b) they offer the widest spectrum of players a chance to take a route that plays to their strengths.

But much more common are the (still excellent) holes that provide only (b), options for a broad spectrum of golfers, but where golfers will tend to play them in a similar way most of the time.

And I wonder if that's where much of the focus seems to be in modern architecture - giving one option for each class of golfer. "The long-hitter can try to hit it there, while the straight guy can hit it there, and the short guy can hit it there..." And many good holes are built as a result.

But how often are holes being built where the architect says: "The longer hitter can try to hit it there, or he can take it over there, or he can really take a chance and go there; the straight hitter can take that route, or he can try to go down that way, or he can lay back and then go that way; and the short hitter can go this way, down that way, or way over there and come in from that way, etc., etc." ? In other words, provide a multitude of legitimate options for a multitude of types of single players?

More often than not, those holes end up being the most interesting and most memorable to play.

[RJ_Daley]

If NGLA were 18 holes of generally optionless golf holes, like the sand island short 6th, I'm sure the course wouldn't be so revered.  But, at 140 yards, even it is not beyond the duff.  Sure, the slopes radiating from the donut would channel balls off the green if sent on the wrong trajectory perhaps hit by the unskilled player.  But, that doesn't speak to the desire for options throughout the entire course design and that they are figments of a higher handicapper's imagination.  

As I said above, I believe there probably is a break point where options are beyond the mental grasp or skill, or self-awareness of poor golfers.  Yet, it doesn't mean that if the options exist by virtue of great design and the golfer's ignorance doesn't recognise them, that the concept is moot.

The handicap system is the obvious equaliser that supercedes this whole discussion.  If Pat M.,(perhaps a 6-9) plays me (a duff 15) on a magnificent course like Royal Melbourne with reknowned options galore, and which we have each never seen, we should have a fine match lke NAFFER describes with Jim.  Both of us ought to be capable of reading what are some of the options presented and know our games enough to visualise what we can and can't do, and try to execute from there.  The hopeless duff probably couldn't.  But, the great majority of players are experienced and familiar with their games enough to guage themselves and play with options appropriately suited to their own game.  

[DMoriarty]

With todays boring bowling alley architecture, options are pretty much limited to club selection.  But options most definitely exist for every level of player, provided that the course and their imagination supplies them with those options.   One key is width.  You need width to create angles and you need angles to create options.  

I am in the middle of a ball striking slump that (relatively) would make David Duval feel good about his game.  And I wasnt any good before the slump.  The way I look at it, I need options more than ever to salvage a hole now and then.   Just this morning, in part because of my miserable play and in part because of severe wind, I played well safe of lines I would usually play on a number of holes.  The results were mostly dastardly but I did manage to salvage a hole or two.  

For worse players, options usually involve deciding when to take an aggressive line or a safe one.  Same as for the better players.

Patrick you got the truth of it in your reference to the schematic at NGLA.  If we had more courses like NGLA we would argue about this less often.  

[DMoriarty]

Isn't one of the most bastardised notions in golf the notion that the "weaker" player should be accomodated?  
Why should they be?

No.  If weaker players weren't accomodated, almost all golfers would become ex-golfers.   Even novice golfers with potential would likely choose to stop getting kicked in the head before they had a chance to get good.

If you aren't any good at a particular sport, and aren't particularly interested in improving, why should your thoughts and position come remotely into consideration?

Because there is more to golf than being good and getting better.  

This merely gives us the farcical notion that a course can be a great championship test, and suitable for the members at the same time.  

Which is always written about Royal Melbourne, except I doubt there are too many members there capable of shooting twenty under par.

Does a member need to shoot 20 under to thoroughly enjoy his golf course?

Competence seems to undervalued in golf.  Possibly because it's much easier to believe you can "buy" a game than it is in all other sports?

On the contrary, competence is almost always overvalued by the competent.  

Please point me toward all these courses which make golf easy for the incompetent player.  For I am so, and could use a break.  

[ForkaB]

Good post, Pat, and good posts on this thread to one and all.

As to the main premise, the "and limited by your abilities" clause is the key one.  The imagination bit is very real, but only in termds of "armchiar" architecture.  A lot of people on this site like to look at a picture or a diagram of a hole and then make (to them) profound comments as to how the hole "plays."  Balderdash!

You don't know until you've been there, and even then, unless you've been there lots of times you don't know squat!

Let's take the poster child for "options"--the 14th at St. Andrews.  This is a long and very wide hole with a lot of hazards strewn about, seemingly (and actually) randomly.  You can pay the hole short or play it long, play it right or play it left.  Hit short of Hell or over it.  Bump and run or fly it onto the green, etc. etc. etc., ad infinitum.  I reality, off the tee the very good golfer knows exactly where he is going to try to hit it (on his drive, second and--if necessary--his 3rd shot), and will probably succeed in doing so.  The reasonably good golfer (0-10) will have a clue or two as to where to hit it, but will probably make an error or two in the process and improvise, as best he or she can.  The "average" gofler (10-25) will just try to get the ball airborne in whatever direction suits him on the day, and then tack his way to the green as best he can.  The poor golfer will keep his head up, his ball down, move inevitably towards the hole and yell at or commiserate with his caddie, depending on his predilection.

Ther really are very few "options", even on that poster hicld of a hole.  It has been immortalised, of course, both by World Atlas of Golf and also by the drawings of MacKenzie--the poster child for (and sometimes advocated of) the average golfer.

Both HIGHLY exaggerate the relevance of "options" on that hole.

Most holes do have options, but (as Shivas has said on an earlier thread, and repeats periodically, fortunately), most reasonably good golfers know exactly what to do on most golf holes, even on the "greatest" courses in the world.  The issue to them is not choice, but execution.

Where imagination comes into play is in realising what might go wrong, and strategising as to what one might do in such circumstances.  This can happen the first time one plays a course, on certain holes, but, as Tommy Armour and the Who once said--"Won't Get Fooled Again!"  There are a very, very few holes (of which 14 TOC is not one) where even if one knows a hole very, very well it has enough real complexity to fool you on the 50th or 200th or 500th go.  Those are the holes we should treasure--not those which just offer "options" with the same degree of commitment and substance as a tired waiter in a fou-fou restaurant trying to get you to order your dessert so he can get home......

[T_MacWood]

Pay
You may be interested to know the 6th was modelled after the short hole at Brancaster at the suggestion of Horace Hutchinson--I believe it was the 5th.

Being approach shots from a perfect lie, many short par-3's do not offer options. In fact if you consider many of our most famous one-shotters, their greatness is founded upon something other than options...although there are notable exceptions.

Over eighty years ago John Low spoke about a golf holes 'indestructability' in the face of equipment advancements. He cited the 17th at St.Andrews as a prime example....to this day that hole appears to have remained indestructable. Unfotunately others have not.

I've always enjoyed the options presented around the greens at Pinehurst #2....how about you?

[ForkaB]

Vis a vis the 6th at NGLA, the one day I played it, the four of us ended up to a front pin position:  40 yards short of the hole in the gunge; in the left front bunker; on the green 15 feet or so from the hole; on the very back of the green, 100 feet or so away from the hole.

We all made 3.

Now, in terms of options, I suspect that each and every one of us ws trying to hit the ball roughly at that front pin position.  There were really no options, and even if there were any, they did not include fatting it short or hooking it left or melting it 3 clubs long.

What did we miss, other than our shots---at least for the 75% of us who did not hit our tee shot to perfection......?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I'm not surprised by your proclamation that options are dead...or that they never existed. Options were never an option with your legendary tunnel vision.

Rich & Pat
When you are old (or should I say when you are really old)...when you can only bust a 200 yard drive or so...do you think you might be singing a different tune?

[TEPaul]

Pat said;

"TEPaul,
Your examples reinforce my theory, while the option may have been recognized by you, a superior player, the ability to execute the shot you mentally constructed, is limited by your level of golfing expertise, and as such, in reality, it may be an illusurory or non-existent option."

Pat:

Although obviously I was trying to be somewhat funny I don't think my example of the shot on NGLA's #9 means that ground game option is illusory or non-existent at all, at least not in the sense it doesn't exist on the golf course. What my example means is only that I'm not very good at the ground game option. If I practiced it I would get better at it and use it more frequently. What this means is that many golf courses have over-irrigated that type of option out of function for many years and so Americans haven't used it and don't practiced it or even thing of it.

Make those types of options function again properly through proper maintenance and they'll start to be used again by American players. Put a European player over my shot and I'm sure that bump and run into NGLA's #9 is a very realistic option. This is all just part of what I call the "ideal maintenance meld."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
After stating that the 14th is wide in the landing zone, contains many hap-hazards and the drive can be played long, short, left right, over or short of Hell,etc.,etc.,and with many ways to approach the green, I wonder why you don't consider it an option-packed hole? I have no first hand knowledge but your description makes it appear so.
 
Is there a hole in the world where the better player has more than 3 flight patterns and several trajectories at his disposal to reach his position "A"? I don't argue that the better player knows what he is going to do on a hole but having a few options available is the salvation for his missed executions or windy conditions.

You mentioned the existence of holes that possess the quality of being able to fool a player, even the unflappable player that you and shivas say "knows exactly what to do" and whose "issue''..is not "choice, but execution", even on the "50th or 200th or 500th go".
Would you tell me what some of those holes are?