Can an architect build an "Option-filled hole" for ALL golfers?

[Dan Grossman]

I was thinking about Pat Mucci's Option thread and what I think his point was....and I started thinking, is it possible to have a hole which provides the same risk/reward options to all golfers?

Based on how far different people hit the golf ball, differences in skill (driving vs. chipping) and differences in skill level, I don't think it is possible.  

For example, I personally really enjoy reachable par 5's in the 525yd - 550yd range (typically) because they give me a real decision to make on my second shot.  I have to decide if I will have a better opportunity to make birdie by trying to hit the green in two or by laying up to a 100yds and wedging it in close.

Last weekend when I played Oak Quarry, there were a couple of par 5's that fit this description and I had interesting choices to make on each hole.  However, the guy I was playing with, who hits the ball really far, found them all too short because he had 5 and 6 irons into the green.  Skill level wasn't really the issue because we are both similar handicaps (within a couple of strokes).

#7 at Rustic Canyon is also a good example of this, in my opinion.  Some of the gentlemen that I play with find that there is a significant advantage to clearing the wash and ending up 80 yards away from the green.  They prefer the approach from the right side.  However, I can't hit that shot and would prefer to have wedge in from 120yds.  For them, it is a great risk/reward par 4 that forces them to think about the wind and how they are hitting the ball when they get on the tee.  All I do is take out 5 iron and bang it down the middle of the fairway.  Pretty boring, IMO.

So, what do people think?  Are there any good risk/reward option holes that have the same shot values for all types of golfers?  Keep in mind that two golfers who are both six handicaps can play VERY different games of golf.  One could be a short game wizard who hits 5 greens a round and another one could hit the ball like a tour pro but not be able to putt or chip.

[THuckaby2]

Well Dan that's the million dollar question, isn't it?  Can any golf hole be all things to all people?  I think it just might be impossible also... and I wonder if it's even worth trying?  Then if we assume it's impossible, the next question is who do you favor?  I'd say screw the long-hitters and pros - they're a tiny minority anyway - gear it toward the average joe and who cares if the pros and long hitters tear it up.

But that's too easy.  There simply must be holes that at least come close.  What about #3 at Rustic?  OK, maybe the big hitter never does anything but bash away at the green there, but man the choices of left, right, short, do exist anyway... and for everyone else, it's choices galore...

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Grossman,

I don't think it's important that it provide the "same" challenge as long as it provides a relative challenge.

But, to answer your specific question, I don't think it's possible.

[Dan Grossman]

Pat - I guess I don't understand what you mean by relative challenge?  

So, if it really isn't possible for an architect to build a risk/reward hole for everyone, could that explain some of the changes in architecture over the past 100 years?  I would imagine (I have no factual basis for this) that the challenges that golfers faced on the course in the US during the golden age were more similar than the challenges faced on the course now for all golfers.

What I mean by this, is if you take 10 golfers and have them play a 400 yd. par 4 during the golden age, they would all hit drives of a similar yardage and have about the same clubs coming in.

Take 10 golfers now and the shortest golfer could have 100 yds more into the green than the longest golfer.  How has this phenomenon influenced architecture?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Pat.  Rarely possible, although a par 3 with multiple tees would come the closest, and rarely necessary!

Imagine a green that presenting a clear and preferred option of say, a high fade, but you hit a low hook and can still reach the green.  Not enough challenge, IMHO, if too many shot types on one particular shot work.  If they do, then the target must be too big to challenge a certain shot, or the hazards too benign.  

My question about options is, "How many does a hole really need?"  In my mind, two is a nice, efficient minimum.  Three is possible, but not for all level players, and four is probably unnecessary and confusing.  At some point, if all options are available, the hole can't strongly test any particular skill.

To me that high fade green (presuming there are some that require a myriad of other shots) should have a less desireable  option to get to the fat middle through run up, or straight shot, etc, but almost require the fade to get to the Sunday Pin, or suffer minor consequences, ie, being farther from the pin, or in a hazard.  

That brings up the question of hazard placement. Who should be penalized more, a high fade that goes too far right, or a hook that goes too far left on a green set up for a fade?

[Dan Grossman]

Tom - I'm not sure that #3 at RC is a good example.  I've never seen anyone INTENTIONALLY go left.  I'm sure the Davids will disagree with me, but I think the best play on that hole, regardless of how far you hit it, is to try to hit a right to left shot with your driver and stay out of the center bunker.  

[Dan Kelly]

Jeff --

Isn't your Quarry 13 an example of a hole with more or less the same options for all golfers who can get the ball aloft?

Oh, I suppose the biggest drivers might try to drive the green -- but I don't see them trying to drive it more than once. Seems like a serious Sucker Play to me.

[JakaB]

I didn't see one pro or hack this weekend that didn't have a world of options on the 14th at Pebble....considereing we now have defined a 12 yd putt in the fairway as an option...I would like to know of a hole where Moriarty or Clayman don't have options.   I guess I woke up this morning in the option camp.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

Pat - I guess I don't understand what you mean by relative challenge?  

So, if it really isn't possible for an architect to build a risk/reward hole for everyone, could that explain some of the changes in architecture over the past 100 years?  I would imagine (I have no factual basis for this) that the challenges that golfers faced on the course in the US during the golden age were more similar than the challenges faced on the course now for all golfers.

What I mean by this, is if you take 10 golfers and have them play a 400 yd. par 4 during the golden age, they would all hit drives of a similar yardage and have about the same clubs coming in.

Take 10 golfers now and the shortest golfer could have 100 yds more into the green than the longest golfer.  How has this phenomenon influenced architecture?

That's a different question then the one posed in the first paragraph of your opening thread/post

[JakaB]

What I mean by this, is if you take 10 golfers and have them play a 400 yd. par 4 during the golden age, they would all hit drives of a similar yardage and have about the same clubs coming in.

 

The stupid quote of the day (see above)....I play some days with the same group when one round we use modern equipment and the next round we use hickories...the dispersion during the hickory round is much greater....or didn't you know modern clubs are more forgiving.  Are you people just trying to piss me off today...try to at least get the most simple observations right.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jaka- Since my game is a roller coaster of manic proportions, I know when I have decent chance for a decent swing and when I don't. Of course, sometimes knowing is only the booby prize. I don't think I know of a single hole or shot where I don't have an option. An option to play at the flag or away. The option to attempt a draw or a fade to either one of the preceeding two options. Or maybe I should favor long versus short? And vice versa. So, the answer is that while I may not be a 36, I am a solid well traveling 14. High enough to know I suck.

p.s. modifyied* George- Riv's #10 was the first thing that came to my mind. But then the poster somehow throws in the qualifier of relativity.

[George Pazin]

Does Riviera #10 fit your criteria?

If you feel it doesn't, then I'd think for you the answer is no.

[TEPaul]

I'm not sure what Pat Mucci means by a 'relative challenge' either but perhaps it could mean something along the lines of the following;

A few weeks ago we met one Mark Parsinen in NYC and talked over architecture and the philosophy of it all morning. It seems to me Mark is into the concept of trying to create golf holes that balance various options in interesting ways.

In other words, a long hitter might take some risk of accuracy to get much nearer a green but by successfully executing this long drive he might have an approach issue or two to contend with he wouldn't have had if he laid well back in the area a shorter driver would normally drive to. And so Mark unveiled a drawing of a hole that fit this description and concept.

The hole was around 400 yds. All the way out to around 250 yards off the tee the fairway which gently sloped right to left was 125 yards wide!!! At that point a tongue of rough ground ate in from the right side and covered over 85 yards leaving a bit less that 40 yards of fairway on the left that funneled downhill and to the left creating somewhat of a turbo boost for the long hitter to get within 70-90 yards of the green.

The green, however, was narrow but quite long and oriented well to the right side of the hole with fairly generous filtering terrain to the green if approached from the right side of the hole. From the far left side segment of the fairway where the long hitter could place a driver although the approach was only about 70-90 yards the green surface was somewhat blind and very shallow from that angle and that approach needed to carry over some junk or bunker hazards to the shallow green surface!

On paper the hole was without question an interesting balance of options, basically giving the shorter hitter about a 70-90 yard longer approach but a more accomodating opening and approach into a long but narrower target than the long hitter who had chosen a much shorter approach but one that needed real distance control atlhough accuracy in that shallow distance band was not an issue as the green was very wide from that left angle .

I'm not sure whether that's the kind of thing Pat meant by a 'relative challenge' but that sounds to me like a pretty interesting strategic hole. Again, the short hitter sort of has one obvious option but I'm not certain what a long hitter would choose to do on that tee shot. Hopefully he might consider both options almost in balance!!

On paper a most interesting hole and I think Mark Parsinen probably did come up with something effectively balancing various options as he was trying to do.

[George Pazin]

Pat would obviously dismiss that hole, because the dub who plays only rolling the ball on the ground would have no option but to roll it all the way around the rough, through the long hitters' landing area, and then roll it back right, so that he could roll it onto the green...hence, no options.

That hole does bring back memories of a really interesting thread in which chipoat argued that length is reward in and of itself and so it shouldn't necessarily be doubly rewarded by orienting the green or positioning hazards so that the longer hitter is favored there as well. Maybe Mark P read that thread. I liked chip's reasoning, but as I recall, there were those (long hitters) who felt you shouldn't be "penalized" by hitting it long.

Can't please everyone, even if there are interesting options around.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP:

Chipoat's reasoning is very interesting, valid and forward thinking. It doesn't matter what the long hitter thinks the hole should or shouldn't do for him he'll still have to decide on that tee shot what's best for him.

As far as what Pat thinks the shorter hitter can do with his next shot that is of no consequence whatsoever! Pat's input has nothing to do with architecture and everything to do with endless unreasonable arguing!  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

I suppose the 13th would qualify, but I have seen players, including my 15 year old son hit the green on the fly.  Counting hitting the left fairway, right fairway, running up the little ramp and flying it, that is four options which are equally enticing for different reasons, regardless of your shot pattern.  I guess that's why its one of my better holes!

Another problems with too many options is that good to very good golfers figure them out, and eventually take the one most favorable.  As they learn the course, options reduce to one, or perhaps 1.5 if the course is playable in variable conditions in other seasons.  I am thinking of 18 at Firestone, where I recall that the debate over which side of the fairway to play raged for a few years, when nearly all the players finally figured it out and play the hole identically in the NEC.

No one in competition is going to use a run up shot, for instance, unless they have practiced it forever and can rely on it, so leaving those is really for the benefit of those who need to run it up, ie, seniors, women, and innacurate long bombers who find the trees next to the fairway.

TEPaul describes what I call a "golfer's choice" concept - Pete Dye calls it "reversing the reward" -  which many architects are using now in place of the classic golden age "positional paradox" where you drive close to the hazard to gain an advantage.  The choice gives you two relatively equal approach options, short and tricky, vs long and straighforward.  The downside is that good players would most likely play safe. Defense wins championships!

[Darren_Kilfara]

I'd have thought it enough to see a golf course which poses options for all golfers over the duration of its 18 holes. There are few enough of those around; those which fit the bill (e.g. The Old Course) tend to be among the best in the world...

Cheers,
Darren

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer said:

"The choice gives you two relatively equal approach options, short and tricky, vs long and straighforward.  The downside is that good players would most likely play safe."

Jeff:

If that's so that more aggressive option must be made more tempting somehow! Options that look interesting but aren't  used much for whatever reasons aren't particularly good options, in my book. That's precisely why a hole such as Riviera's #10 is just so good---it has a number of diverse tee shot options and even the touring pros in the Nissan Open seem to use all of them.

I still have on tape the final group on Sunday in the 1998 Nissan Open of Love, Tryba and Woods, all locked in contention and each of them tried a far different tee shot choice! That's when I said to myself there really is something fascinating about this hole. How often do you see three tour pros in one group try something off the tee entirely different? Most holes in this world don't even offer them that architectural opportunity much less one where they actually do three different things intentionally!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

So now it's RISK, NO REWARD.

Interesting concept.

[TEPaul]

Jeff Brauer said:

"TEPaul describes what I call a "golfer's choice" concept - Pete Dye calls it "reversing the reward" -  which many architects are using now in place of the classic golden age "positional paradox" where you drive close to the hazard to gain an advantage."

Jeff:

I think we should take that statement and develop a thread out of it. What you say there is a pretty fundamental difference and an excellent distinction to clarify.

I like the way you call that classic golden age idea a "positional paradox". Max Behr occassionally referred to it as the "pressure points"!  

However, I see so many more holes (tee shots) on the newer courses today that basically are "in your face" golfer's choice--in other words they HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE between two or so distinct options simply because something generally separates them.

I noticed on the Pat Mucci "option figament of your imagination" thread Lester George came on the thread and offered three golfers a chance to see his Kinlock G.C. apparently to prove that there are distinct options on that course. From the photos I've seen of some of the holes he's not joking at all about that---there seem to be a plethora of in your face "golfer's choices" on numerous tee shots.

Who can quibble with that? That's good stuff--sort of forces them to think and make a decision!

[Jeff_Brauer]

No argument there, TEPaul.  10 at Riv is a great hole which you've referenced often.

However, the practical side of golf development is that few courses can have that many holes with double fairway options.  The cost pressures of a typical club prohibit that.  And, in the confines of "typical" fairway corridors, those meaningful options are harder - but not impossible to recreate.

Not to sound critical, but how long do you think Mark Parsinen's 125 yard wide fairway would last in light of the dues necessary to keep that up?  Assuming you were fighting to keep this arcihtectural concept, what is the minimum width of safe fairway you would reduce that sketch to?  

Assuming Pelz and others are right, and that players keep most of their shots within 7% of intended line, at 250 yards, a fairway of 35 yards would contain most safe tee shots.  I woud reduce that hole to about 60 safe/30 risk option (40 is too wide for good players) as a nice compromise between practicality and design intent.

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci says;

"TEPaul,
So now it's RISK, NO REWARD.
Interesting concept."

Well, Pat, there are some golfers who apparently think getting 70-90 yards closer to their next target despite a slight encumbrance is reward enough---but obviously you don't understand that either!  

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Sounds like TARGET GOLF raised to a new level,
as if the architect is telling you where you, prudently, have to go, eliminating your beloved options.

Isn't this what you and others have been complaining about for years ??

[TEPaul]

Here's the way Pat looks at a multi-optional hole like that Parsinen concept hole.

The long hitter hits a drive left down a turbo boost to 70-80 yards closer to the green but inherits a shallow and somewhat blind green approach over some junk to the green. So in Pat's mind that's just RISK and consequently that option isn't a 'viable option'.

For the shorter hitter (persumably higher handicapper) who has to lay back in the 100+ yard wide fairway to the more accomodating green opening but much longer approach that's not a 'viable option' either because the shorter player can't hit that approach shot!

So, just as George Pazin suspected Pat thinks this hole has NO OPTIONS--basically in Pat's mind there's no 'viable' way to play this hole for the handicapper and for the scratch player there's no way he'd want to play the hole!  

[TEPaul]

"Sounds like TARGET GOLF raised to a new level,
as if the architect is telling you where you, prudently, have to go, eliminating your beloved options.
Isn't this what you and others have been complaining about for years??"

The architect is telling you where you PRUDENTLY have to go? What kind of mumbo-jumbo is that Pat? Did you happen to miss the fact that the long hitter ALSO has the option of playing his tee ball to the same position the shorter hitter can? And did you miss the fact as well that the first 250 yards of the fairway is 125 yards wide?? That doesn't exactly sound or look to me like the architect is telling you to PRUDENTLY do anything except what you feel is best for your next shot!