[Jeff Goldman]

 The "resistance to scoring" thread brings up this thought:  Resistance to scoring ratings seem to favor the penal school of architecture.  Don't many great courses often reward good play rather than severely penalizing bad play?  Didn't Mac., for instance, favor rewarding aggressive, risky play with a better chance at a good score, while giving those who failed a fun attempt at a great recovery?  Those who play safe got a good chance at an average score, but a difficult next shot to make a good score.  

  The penal school, on the other hand, seems to require a specific, difficult shot simply to stay in the game.  Here I'm thinking of courses like Medinah or RTJ Open courses, where if you don't hit shot x, you're dead.  

  That gives these kinds of courses a leg up in resistance to scoring, but should it?  On the "strategic" course, an average score may be 80 and a good score 72.  On the penal course, the average may be 90 and a good score 82.  Does this mean that the penal course has higher resistance to scoring or the same relative resistance?  I wonder what Shivas would say the difference is between his average and good scores at Shoreacres vs. Medinah, and whether that means anything (besides Shoreacres is easy and not a great course  ).  Or not.

Jeff Goldman

[Jeff Goldman]

So Shivas, what is the difference between an average and good score at Medinah vs. SA, and is that number higher at Medinah?  

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas, you may be right, but it still looks like the resistance to scoring category unduly favors penal courses.

[Doug Siebert]

Shivas,

Why do you say that penal courses are designed for the longer player?  Obviously Medinah is a example to support your theory, but there are plenty of goofy little super-tight courses that barely exceed 6000 yards but are damn tight even with 3 iron off the tee for those who aren't particularly straight.  Some courses just make you feel claustrophobic, I can only take so many holes where there is trouble hugging each side and never any bailout or room for error.  How many of those courses are great or examples of great architecture is another matter, but penal architecture, of whatever quality, is certainly not confined to the longer courses.

Personally I find I have a more difficult time at one of those overly tight over treed, over OBed, over hazarded little beasts at 6300 yards as I do with a tight course at 7300.  Simply because no one in their right mind would require the level of accuracy on a course that stretches to 7300 that is done for courses where the tips are at 6300.  The occasional hole on the longer course that does require an insane level of accuracy can be taken because you know you don't have 17 others like it, and if you have a disaster, the next one probably won't be quite as demanding so you don't get into a bad streak that has you doubting your abilities and ruining your game for the day.

If I've got my 1 iron working well for me on a given day, a tight 7300 yard course doesn't faze me -- I may be hitting 3 or 4 irons into the long par 4s, but that's better than playing half of them with a short iron and half from the trees or reteeing and hitting three!  But damn those little short nasty courses seem to have some holes that require shots to a level of accuracy I don't seem to have with any club I own.  I'll get more pars and a few birdies (if I don't get too frustrated and mentally quit first) for my trouble, but I'll end up with a bunch of penalty strokes and other disasters that bring my score easily in the 80s, where I'd be on that long tight course anyway.

[Jeff Goldman]

Doug, good point.  Big Run in Chicago is now fairly short for good players - 6500 yards or so, but penal in the extreme.  Trees in tight, water fronting some greens, and not much in the way of options really.  If you aren't dead straight, you're dead.

Shivas last leads to a further point on resistance to scoring, which is that some clubs may be reluctant to make any changes that may make their course seem easier and fall in that rating.  Some don't want to chop trees to recover options, for that reason.  At my course, they are debating whether to play 18 as a par 4 or short par 5.  Historically, it bounced back and forth, but usually played a par-4 from the back and or the short par-5 from the middle.  They first changed it to a par 4 for all, I think to hold up the course and slope rating, but recently decided to go back to the 4/5, and the "up" tees will be behind the "back" tees.

Jeff Goldman

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

First a good topic, standing out among several good ones here recently.

Here is another way to think about resistance to scoring....

While you can do it by placing extensive hazards around nearly every landing area, a la RTJ, hoping to penalize the best players at least once per 18 up to 72 holes (the leaders aren't going to make that big a mistake that often, although the guys who miss the cut would) to offset any birdies they may make.  Fair enough.

However, there are many courses that are "resistant to scoring very low, but easy enough to score near par" which is a different design philosophy.  Augusta is/was an example of this, and most examples would probably use similar interior green contours that don't punish anyone excessively, but do limit birdie putt from indifferent approach shots.  If you don't carry or otherwise negotiate a certain interior green contour protecting the pin, then your shot will careen away to 30 feet or more, versus a 10 foot birdie putt.  Or, if you get above the hole, yada, yada, yada.

If you protect par through greens contours, you may get a course where its easy to shoot 72-74 for a good player, but hard to shoot a 68, unless your iron game is on.  And, since this rewards accurate and  creative iron play, which you can only do if you find the fairway, I suppose it rewards tee shot play about equally.  In a way, it doesn't really reward putting, but rewards getting close enough to make good putting a factor.

Does that make sense?

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Simple question -- so don't do the political tap dance -- OK?

What is the better golf course (you supply your own definition of points of emphasis) -- Medinah or Shoreacres?

Thanks ...

[Jeff Goldman]

Matt, which Medinah?  

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

If Shivas needs to ask that then I know we are in big trouble.  

I'm only speaking about #3 at the Big M.

Jeff -- how bout you take a stab at answering the question as well? I personally believe both courses are a bit overrated but for different reasons. However, I'll defer for now to Shivas because he is much more familiar with both of them.

[Jeff Goldman]

Matt, I was asking which iteration of #3 -- 1976, 1990, 1999, 2003?

First, thanks Jeff, for the your post, which captures what I was getting at better than I could.  I really think a course like you described is in general miles better than a "penal" course.  Moreover, the tee ball can be tested by requiring the golfer to get to a certain part of the fairway to get a decent shot at getting an approach close, given the hole location, wind, etc., while a safer shot would make it easy to hit the fat part of the green and a possible 2 putt par.

Matt, I have never played #3, but as Shivas describes it, it doesn't sound like a fun place to play if your handicap isn't very low.  Hit to x or be dead, then chip sideways to x so you can play the next required shot, etc.etc.  Almost like hitting targets at a driving range.  I read the go-round about the lousy holes at SA, but even if true, the fun holes are tons of fun for me to play, and I'd love to play it again this summer.  I think the use of the ravines is ingenious as well.  However, the sense I get from better players you aren't big fans (you and Shivas in particular), is that SA basically tests how close you can hit wedges.  In fact, the implication is that it isn't that different from #3.  Like Medinah, your score depends solely on how well you hit and putt the ball (albeit with shorter irons), again like hitting targets at a range; the course itself is basically irrelevant.  

Jeff Goldman

[BCrosby]

Jeff Brauer -

Terrific post.

The obvious question is why don't more courses use contouring as ANGC does/did?

When ANGC first opened, it had only 22 bunkers. Green site pictures indicate contouring was originally even more severe than it is now (believe it or not). Some of it bordered on the nutty. But that is precisely what Jones wanted and why he hired MacK. Contouring was quite explicitly intended as the courses's principal defensive weapon.

The same might be said for NGLA. Arguably contouring is the principal defensive weapon used by MacD/Raynor on their template holes. (Think Biarritz, Eden, Redan, the horseshoe in the Short.) It's a also a big part of knowing how to play TOC. Ditto for N. Berwick. What people like most about Cuscowilla is the contouring of green surrounds. Do I need to point out that these also happen to be among the courses us wingnuts respect the most?

So, again, why haven't more courses used the same idea?

I simply don't believe the modern aerial game is so precise that well contoured greens aren't still an effective defense. Take no. 5 at ANGC. The scoring averages on that hole indicate that a severely contoured green can still give the best payers in the world plenty of trouble. Birdies are very rare. Long hitters or short hitters. Also note that no. 5 is,  essentially, hazardless (the single small bunker behind the green is rarely in play).

Severely contoured greens and green surrounds work. As you noted, when well done they result in the best of all worlds. Good play will result in good but not great scores, but only the most extraodinary shot-making will get you very far under par.

The final part of the puzzle for me is that shaping and maintaining contours is a lot less expensive to build and maintain than bunkers. Slopes cost less, not more, than traditional hazards. So the objection can't be cost.

What am I missing here?

Bob  

[BCrosby]

Mashie1 -

Then don't let greens stimp faster than 7 or 8. There's no rule that says great courses have to have lightening fast greens. As a bonus, you save on maintenance.

Bob

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

Thanks for the nice comments.  When I made the post, I was actually thinking of Brookstone, not far from you as an example of one of my designs that does that, and that comment "easy to shoot 72, hard to shoot 68" came from co-designer Larry Nelson regarding that course.

Really, that type of design was the staple of the golden age.  Mashie hit on the basic reason its harder - flatter greens.  Another reason beyond green speed is higher play - if we have a busy course, we may feel we need to devote every square foot of interior green space to possible cup space, which reduces the amount of rolling edges you can bring across the green to subdivide it.

Also, on any course that will machine mow, the clean up pass along the collar recieves lots of wear and tear, since it gets mowed everyday in the same direction.  In some climates and soils, the edges of the greens are subject to "wicking" moisture out of the soil, the green edge can see lots of traffic exiting the green, and the raised ridges of greater contouring also get dried out from winds.   Add in the stress of lower cuts, and possibly other environmental factors like out of season weather and shade, and those things combine to make turf growthon substantial contours, especially those near green edges, difficult.

As Mashie says, most course designs give up the greatness in favor of speed of play and these practical maintenance issues.  Just a guess, but I suppose that if a golden age designer had somehow lived through to today, his designs would be similarly modified to what most of us do today, given current conditions.  He would have had to have seen the same things we saw, as they were constantly striving to make their designs practical as well, especially after the roaring 20's ceased.  

[Mashie1]

Mashie1 -

Then don't let greens stimp faster than 7 or 8. There's no rule that says great courses have to have lightening fast greens. As a bonus, you save on maintenance.

Bob

 

I would get that accomplished if I had the power.  But, that has as much of a chance of happening as the R & A and the USGA rolling back the ball and making woods be made out of wood.

 

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff G:

The point you raised on Medinah speaks volume on what is wrong with the course -- the constant two steps forward followed by three steps backwards. I mean how many different version have there been regarding just the 17th hole?
 
I believe neither Medinah #3 and Shoreacres should be rated as high as they are. But, I will defer to Shivas at this point for his assessment of the two courses and why he may think otherwise.

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Very nice tap dance -- you still dance better than most here on GCA!

All kidding aside I appreciate your reasoning but still disagree that either of the two courses really has the COMPOSITE STOCK OF ARCHITECTURAL DEPTH.

Truth be told -- does either of the two really belong among the top 100 courses in the USA?

I mean beyond the "monster" tag what gives with Medinah #3? I mean the course has had more facelifts and nose jobs than Joan Rivers! Maybe they should forward the steel wall that used to front the 17th green to Golf House to be kept as a reminder to what can happen when people overdose things on a hole!

And, for Shoreacres to get all the fanfare is really quite much given the sheer number of inferior holes you find there. Raynor did far superior work at other layouts (e.g. Camargo & Fisher's Island) -- the hype connected to the course is really symptomatic of "fan-itis" connected to the designer than to the actual product he produced there IMHO.

If you want a better example of a course that neatly combines the two elements you articulated I would say a short trip to Skokie would do the trick quite nicely.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

Haven't been to Brookstone in more than 10 years. I will revisit with a new eye. BTW, have you heard about the newly NLE Centennial? A shame. I liked the course. As I recall, you worked on that course, no?

Jeff/Mashie1 -

I hear you about pinnable locations, speed of play, green speeds,  maintenance, etc. But I am not convinced that those things explain the dearth of modern, contour rich courses.

Not convinced because, first, there is a track record of highly contoured courses in the US and UK managing these issues reasonably well and, second, they just don't strike this layman as being any more expensive/hard to deal with than the alternatives - which are flat greens that have to be maintained at 10+ stimps, lots more bunkers that need grooming, lots more water edges that need tending and so forth. But, heck, I'll be the first to acknowledge that you guys are there on the ground and I'm not.

Back in the recesses of my twisted little mind, a voice keeps telling me that there is another, more troubling reason why extreme contouring is disfavored. That reason is aesthetics. Builders/clubs want to see white, shapely, flashy sandy bunkers. They want to see ponds and creeks. They want to advertise slick greens with high stimp numbers.

Rolls, catch basins, swails, and hollows lack curb appeal. Interesting contouring will, more often than not, lose out to the flashy stuff. Does that make any sense?

Put differently, everyone's first reaction to TOC is less than overwhelming. There's very little flash. Instead there is lots and lots of extraordinary contouring which you learn to appreciate slowly and only after several rounds. It is one of the things that make TOC one of the greatest courses in the world.

But if someone were trying to sell me condos overlooking the 14th at TOC, my wife would insist on something prettier.

Bob

[Mashie1]

Oh, I hate A-4, G-2 and all that crap.  And, I despise flat greens that are more turf nurseries rather than golf greens.  But, it comes down to supply and demand, I'm afraid.  When I read, or hear, about courses having to soften green contours to accommodate the faster putting surfaces they will have after they convert to A-4, well, it just sickens me.  And, many times it surprises me what architects have participated in this excercise.

Faster is better is here to stay for the forseeable future.  Thank you PGA Tour, Augusta, USGA and all the greens chairmen who require their supers to increase green speeds.

Read "The Art of Putting" sometime, if you can find a copy, to see what it used to be like.

 

[Jeff Goldman]

Matt and Shivas,

  My point about Medinah is how could a course ranked so highly have required such changes?  Maybe Olympia Fields hits the middle ground between #3 and SA.  Very very difficult (73.6/142 from the regular men's tees), but with a lot of places to play, and just tons of fun around the greens.  Also, a lot of holes where position in the fairway matters (not just hitting the fairway), and trees impede only a few holes, although we should probably cut down everything around some of the greens (and in some rough) for better turf.

Jeff Goldman

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()