Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mark_Huxford on January 16, 2002, 01:10:21 AM
-
Bobby Jones once wrote:
There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one. One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment upon the bad shot, to place it's perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble demanding the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering; the other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the drive.
What hole would you put forward for the best example of the second type of hole? What holes are the posterchildren for the strategic school?
I have chosen the Leven hole at NGLA. What are some others?
(http://jove.prohosting.com/~hux/leven.jpg)
-
Mark
What about that par 5 at Crooked Stick where Daly won the PGA in '91 ( I think it was the 14th- the dog leg left around the swamp?) The further you can hit it, and therefore the more you can cut the corner of the dogleg, the shorter the iron in (Daley was hitting wedge as I recall).
Maybe this hole meets both parts of the definition- penal and rewarding?
-
Now you guys have touched a HUGE nerve. I am a big fan of par 4's and 5's that reward positioning near danger in order to best set up the next shot. However, I'm afraid that holes that reward length in any way other than a shorter club don't do it for me - having extra length is enough of an advantage, already. I prefer holes where the greens are angled and/or protected such that the best position to attack them is from a relatively precarious place that required a darn good shot (but not a LONG shot) to get there in the first place.
First, the "don't like as much as pure strategic":
First, my problem with most "Cape" holes is that the longer hitter, after having "bitten off" more on the drive than the shorter hitter, usually has a more straight-forward approach angle to the green - and with a shorter club, as well! It seemes to me that the true "strategic Cape" would leave the SHORTER player with the easier angle/longer club and the longer hitter with the more challenging angle to compensate for the shorter club to be used.
Other "great holes" where the longer hitter has an easier angle AND a shorter club: NGLA #'s 2,3,12,14 (Cape),17,18;
PVGC #'s 1,4,6 (Cape),13,16; Merion #'s 1 and 10. As to #17 (Levin) at National, there's no more beautiful vista in all of golf (even at Cypress) and, like all of NGLA, playing the hole is a marvelous experience. However, the shorter hitter is simply unable to accomplish the strategic objective - there's too much wasteland to carry.
Second, I'm not enamored with holes where being very near trouble is LESS desirable than the center of the fairway: Most holes are like this in order to be "fair" (and they're easier to design) but, for example, wouldn't #1 at Pine Valley be neat if the green was easier to attack from near the right bunkers than from dead center? Yes, the hole is already hard enough but you get the point.
Can you imagine the bitching and moaning if somebody ever built a course where the center of the fairway was never as desirable as near the left/right trouble?? It might be too much of a good thing, anyway - too subtle, too "tricky", etc.
Now the "like most" part:
Merion is loaded with holes that reward the risky play over the safe "bail out" including: #2 (play the entire hole up the right side near the OB for the best approach), #4 (aim at the right side bunker for the flattest 2nd shot - the center of the fairway is squirrelly), #5 (play along the left creek for the best angle into the green and the flattest stance), #7 (drive towards the OB for the best angle into the green), #14 (playing away from the OB leaves a longer, tougher shot), #15 (my kind of Cape plus you have to aim towards the left OB to get the best angle) and #18 (left off the tee towards the rough/OB leaves a better angle).
National has its share of strategic holes including: #7 - MacDonald's Road Hole (best 2nd shot angle is, arguably, from as far right towards the bunkers as you dare), #8 (green opens up the further right you drive it and #15 (the green opens up better from near the left bunker and/or rough).
Even the ultimate penal course, Pine Valley, has a couple of places where aiming dead center is less desirable for every golfer - not just the longer hitter. For example, #11 plays better up the right side near the trees and bunkers, I think. However, the second shot on #15 is the ultimate - if you don't aim at the left trees, your ball will be in the right trees when it stops rolling.
Finally, what better strategic shots than the drive and 2nd at Pebble #18? The closer you are to the ocean on the left after each, the easier your next shot becomes. Sort of like #2 at Merion in reverse (and a more spectacular setting, to be sure).
There's other kinds of great par 4's and 5's - Pine Valley and Shinnecock (to name 2 of many) are filled with them. But subtle strategic holes that require precision and thought regardless of wind and the players' length - that's a good thread for this site.
Take your shots, guys
-
VERY interesting and I love all of this! I am, however, having a hard time understanding your basic premise, ie:
First, my problem with most "Cape" holes is that the longer hitter, after having "bitten off" more on the drive than the shorter hitter, usually has a more straight-forward approach angle to the green - and with a shorter club, as well! It seemes to me that the true "strategic Cape" would leave the SHORTER player with the easier angle/longer club and the longer hitter with the more challenging angle to compensate for the shorter club to be used.
Please explain for dense ole me - why shouldn't a player hitting a stronger, more risky drive be rewarded for such in ALL aspects (distance and angle)? I sorta understand this - it gives more ways to play the hole and more chances for success - but a hole like you prescribe would just mean NO ONE takes the riskier longer route - why wouldn't the longer hitter just hit an easier club off the tee, to get the better angle? Then he's at the same place as the "shorter" hitter, and then hits less club anyway....
I like the idea so my question is an honest one... Maybe I am missing something. Sure wouldn't be the first time.
Thanks!
TH
edited to remove an extra word erroneously not deleted before
-
Forgive me - I've thought about this more and maybe figured it out a bit better... You advocate not making the choices so clear-cut for the better player (ie, long shot means shorter distance but perhaps not better angle, making him think even more on the tee) whilst also giving some equity to the shorter player, for whom there is less choice... Is this it?
If so, that does indeed make for a better golf hole.
TH
-
Chipoat,
Excellent post, and wonderful examples.
-
Chip,
I second Mike's emotion--one of the best posts of the new year because you support your position with concrete examples. I was certainly thinking the Cape hole at Mid Ocean before I read your post. Now I'm not so sure... :-/
All The Best,
-
I'll make it three, that's for sure. It OBVIOUSLY got me thinking given my two posts above!
Fantastic examples also, right on.
TH
-
Good posts
The leven hole at Yale (#6) works in a similar way to the one at NGLA but distance off the tee is not the premium. The left side of the fairway is bordered by a stream that cuts into the fairway probably 270 or so from the tee. THe only person I've actually seen take it over the water from a back tee is JohnV. Mere mortals try to hug the left side of the fairway to avoid the right greenside bunker that plays much like the one seen above at NGLA. The hole at Yale does not have any carry feature on the drive and you avoid the carry on the second shot by challenging the lateral water hazard on the drive.
Does that suit you better Chip?
Also, the main feature of a "cape" hole is the appearance of the green jutting out into the water not the diagonal carry off the tee. Using Yale again as an example we can look at the 2nd hole. There is no carry off the tee (unless you count the stream 100 yards off the tee) but the green is a cape jutting out into a hillside with bunkers 30 feet below the green surface. See photo in Ran's course profile and the aerial from 1934 that I posted a couple of days ago in two different threads.
-
GeoffreyC,
Interesting...
Here is the GCA writeup re Mid Ocean's 5th:
"Mid Ocean's supporting cast includes the all-universe 5th, the prototypical Cape hole. From a high tee, this 430 yarder plummets across the lake with a tempting diagonal carry. Of the dozens of photographs taken from the tee of this hole, the authors have still never seen one of the approach, which is equally impressive. The long, rather narrow green is set at a right-to-left angle to the player and features a considerable slope from the right, much like a narrower version of the 8th green at Yale. This slope underlines the advantage gained from a bold tee shot down the left as the player is then hitting into the slope, using it somewhat as a backstop, while the player from the right side of the fairway has a much narrower target (and with a longer club). This is a rare hole that deserves all the praise it receives. There is no finer 5th to be found."
I don't recall that the 5th green juts out into the water as you described, but it's been a long time since I was there so I may be wrong. If it doesn't, is the GCA description wrong?
Also, based on this GCA description, I now think the 5th at Mid Ocean is a very strategic hole indeed. :)
All The Best,
-
Doug
I believe that Brian Silva also missed the point about the cape hole in his LINKS article.
Here is what George Bahto says in his feature interview on this site
"The 'Cape' hole, according to Macdonald, was first labeled that (not first designed) when he built the 14th at NGLA. Most people think it is the angle of the tee-ball play that makes it a 'Cape hole' - not true. The word 'cape' refers to a body of land jutting into a body of water, forming a small peninsula. Macdonald 14th 'Cape' green originally jutted into the bay, but was subsequently moved in the late 1920s for two reasons. One was that downwind, big hitters were attempting to drive the green. The second was the necessity of constructing a new access road along the edge of the shoreline. Macdonald moved the green to the left further onto shore and surrounded it with sand. Then, Raynor (a civil engineer also) designed a new access road leading to the front gate. Cape holes come in a variety of designs. The 14th at Fishers Island, for example, requires the tee-ball to flirt close to the edge of a hazard rather than successfully attempt a carry. Even greens that jut out into midair on the edge of a precipice can be considered 'Cape-style greens' - the second green (not the second hole) at Yale was called just that in an early verbal description."
Lets hear from our YODA of MacDonald/Raynor.
Paging Mr. Bahto. Mr. Bahto come in please.
-
Tom Huckaby:
I think you get it but I'll re-state since it's clearly a personal preference thing like blondes/brunettes and chocolate/vanilla, etc.
My basic premises are:
1) The longer hitters already have an advantage - and a perfectly fair one, at that. However, why make that advantage even more pronounced by designing a hole where only the longer hitter is able to achieve the optimal angle of attack on the approach?
2) In almost all cases, I like the idea that "the shorter the club that is intended to be used on an approach to a green, the more precision should be demanded either via green size and/or angle of green plus protecting bunkers".
This means that my personal preferences are:
1) As you concluded, I like holes where the longer hitter has to decide if the short way home is worth the tougher angle or whether he plays the hole for a better angle like the shorter player is forced to do - albeit with a shorter club!
This means that, because of the way the greens are angled, I prefer Merion #15 to Pine Valley #6 as a strategic Cape-type hole. Would many others share my preference? I doubt it. Pine Valley #6 is a visual stunner that rewards the heroic tee shot. Merion #15 is a subtle parkland design that is overshadowed by its other 4 neighbors on that course's well known "back 5" finishing holes.
2) I also like small, dangerous greens on holes intended for short iron approaches (e.g. #8 at Pine Valley or #'s 8 & 9 at Cypress). Alternatively, like Tom Paul, I like "multiple greens within a big green" as short iron targets such as #6 at National or #14 at Pebble.
Would I, for example, like to see the greens made smaller at Pine Valley #12 and Merion #10? You bet. Do I think #10 at Riviera is the best example of BOTH my points? Absolutely.
(Thanks, Tom Paul).
So there.
Mike Cirba:
Thanks for your support - what's your take on this?
-
Muchas gracias, Chip. This is one damn fine take on strategic golf, and you have educated me tremendously. I swear I never thought of it this way at all and you have indeed converted me.
But just as a test.... I don't ever trust myself....
17 at National would be better if the green were angled in the opposite direction (ie make it a mirror image)?
Very interesting indeed....
TH
-
Geoffrey,
Most interesting. If we buy Mr. Bahto's definition, then there seems to be a lot of misuse of the term. Another example of "misuse" is Tom Doak's description of #6 at my home course, Denver CC, as a Cape hole. So...what, if anything, do we call holes like #5 at Mid Ocean and #6 DCC if they're not truly Cape holes; i.e. holes where there is a diagonal "bite off what you can chew" carry?
All The Best,
-
Someone who can hit it long and accurate should have an advantage over someone who can hit it short and accurate - case closed. Any course that doesn't reward this is some way is in my mind less than ideal!
Let's not forget what game it is that we are playing and that one of the prime objectives in golf is to play holes in the least number of strokes possible. This objective generally holds whether you keep score of not! ;)
-
That was my initial thought also, Mark.
But the more I thought of it, the more Chip's take goes way beyond that... at least I think so... I'll let Chip explain for himself, though.
TH
-
Doug
I think the basic idea of a cape hole is misused by the huge majority of people.
The American College Dictionary definition
cape- a piece of land jutting into the sea or some other body of water.
The Cape of Good Hope
Cape Horn etc
-
Chipoat,
I have to agree with you, and thus, disagree somewhat with Mark Fine.
We all have such passionate discussions about how unbridled technological growth is ruining the game, and how the pure power game is becoming a cross country game of lawn darts.
Then, we also praise holes that not only give the longest hitters a shorter approach shot, but also a clear path. What's next, a ramp to the hole? ;)
A few weeks ago I watched an old match of "Big Three Golf" on the Golf Channel. It took place at lengthy, if "non-strategic" Firestone, and I was singularly impressed with Gary Player. On many holes, he was left with woods and long iron approaches, yet he consistently struck them to within close range of the hole.
On the face of it, Jack Nicklaus, much physically larger and more powerful, should have dominated, but because Player had such accuracy, Player was in it til the end.
Mark Fine's argument assumes that the player like Nicklaus who drives it longer is a better golfer. It isn't necessarily so; he's just longer and stronger.
However, on a course full of "cape" holes, where a shorter player has to lay back and the longer one can continually gain advantage, Nicklaus would have creamed him.
I think it's all about angles, and how they are created. #15 at Merion is a PERFECT example, once again, because the longer hitter has to take a much riskier angle that might easily bound through the fairway and OB, if he wants the preferred angle for the second shot.
With the USGA & R&A seemingly impotent to rein in technology, we should be having more of these discussions that focus on how thoughtful architecture can do their work for them.
-
GeofferyC et al:
Sorry to have misused the Cape description although my experience is that all the Cape-type holes I can think of have Doug Wright's diagonal "bite off what you can chew" tee ball opportunity with a green that is, by design, somewhat more receptive to the guy who's bitten off the most - which is my whole point. The short hitter's tougher shot isn't just because it's longer - it's also because the green's angled to favor the approach from the long hitter's side.
I don't know what to call what I have in mind - it seems like "dogleg" isn't quite descriptive enough, though.
And, yes, #6 at Yale does make me feel better. Of course, given the choice to play National or Yale on any given day - I'm afraid I'd compromise my "strategic" principles about 99% of the time.
Tom Huckaby:
You got it! In a perfect "strategic" world, the longer hitter down the left side of #17 at National would then face a more complicated problem with a shorter club than his more mortal counterpart who is unable to bite off as much and is forced to play from the middle of the fairway with a longer club. Is the answer (assuming there really is a "problem") a mirror image of the current green complex? I suspect a real architect could achieve the same result with something more subtle (and I know you guys are out there!). However, you definitely get my drift.
Mark Fine:
Long and accurate players already have a legitimate advantage over the shorter, accuate ball striker. I'm not advocating "taking the driver out of the hands" of the long knockers via forced lay-ups, severly pinched fairways, etc. (at least not in this discussion). I'm all for giving the long hitter the choice. However, I'm not always enamored with holes that are designed such that ONLY the longer hitter can find the best angle for the next shot. The exceptions I can think of are when the rest of the hole offers something truly special (such as #18 at National) but, by and large, I like holes where longer hitters just have a length advantage - not a design advantage, as well.
I also like "in your face" holes requiring heroic shots, too but that's not what this thread's all about.
-
VERY cool, Chip - thanks! Just looking at the picture of NGLA 17, mirror image conveyed the easiest way to "fix" the hole I could think of, though I agree a clever designer could do so in many other ways.
I worship at the altar of NGLA, though... all this talk of improving any hole there is making me feel a little uneasy...
I do LOVE the concept though, in any case...
TH
-
Chip
I have to vote with the "more risk/more reward" school on this one. To me, having to decide (for example) on whether or not to try to bomb the driver to position A or bunt the 1-iron to position B, or (for another example) whether to hit the high 6-iron at the tucked in pin rather than bump and run the 5-iron to the middle of the green is what strategy is all about. Whether to take the easy option of the "soft underbelly of Europe" (as Churchill advocated) or go for Normandy and D-Day, as Eisenhower did. Whether to accept safety and perennial mediocrity (as General Electric (UK) did) or take the risk of transformation, as GE (US) has done. One is perhaps the leading company in the world, the other is near bankruptcy.
Any hole that allows the 1-iron lay-up off the tee to leave one with the same shot values to the hole as the driver bombed around the corner, or has a green where the expertly struck shot is not rewarded, is not an optimal test of golfing strategy (or is not "strategic", in the anthropomorphical use which is unfortunately common on this site and elsewhere).
Boy, that felt good! :)
-
Rich,
Glad it was good for you...
As for the rest of us, isn't it "anthropomorphic?" ;)
All The Best,
-
Tom Huckaby:
National's one of my top 3 places to enjoy golf for a whole lot of reasons - I'm not advocating changes, either (golf course or otherwise). However, Mark Huxford did start this thread using #17 to open up one of my all-time favorite issues of golf hole design. So how could I resist?
Besides, National is a perfect example for all sorts of threads relating to "then and now":
1) ground game/air game
2) big greens/small greens
3) modern speed greens/"classic era" speed greens
4) watering systems/unwatered fairways
5) 1.68 ball/1.62 ball (used in the U.S. prior to 1930 something)
How can you discuss the evolution of technology, playing conditions and golf course construction without examining National?
We'll have some fun with those, someday.
CO
-
My God is this risky, but.... leaving the historic and business references aside...
Sticking to how this relates to golf, I really think you're missing this one, Rich. Read carefully how Chip explains this... The point isn't that the bold driver leaves the same shot as the safe 1iron, but more that the bold driver leaves a shorter shot that is NOT necessarily 100% easier... The bold driver is rewarded, but not COMPLETELY. Thus there is more thought on the tee, it's not completely cut and dried. It also leaves a doable route for the player for a heroic shot is impossible. Picture 17NGLA with the green angling the other way... the choices off the tee would be much more difficult to decipher. Right would leave a better angle, but a much longer shot... Left would leave a wedge, but over the bunkers... probably worth the risk, but not for everyone... adds a lot more thought to the mix.
And Chip is not saying EVERY hole should be like this, just that those that are are fine indeed.
More risk / more reward is fine, I dig holes like that most definitely... but there is room for "more thought, not having things totally clear" also.
BTW, I am really chuckling at "not an optimal test of golfing strategy (or is not "strategic", in the anthropomorphical use which is unfortunately common on this site and elsewhere).
Didn't we have a little off-line chat about overusing 25-cent words? ;)
Sometimes a technically incorrect usage just sounds and works better, YA KNOW? I sure AIN'T kiddin'.
TH
ps - God willing, my English teacher Dad will never see this.
-
We crossed in cyberspace, Chip and I hope I did your theories justice in my response to Rich.
Hang around this site a bit more and you'll see, NGLA is nearly ALWAYS an example cited, in any discussion... and several of the topics you mention have already been discussed here in relation to this gem. I have absolutely no problems mentioning and discussing NGLA, I love to do so!
I just get a little scared suggesting improvements...
The ghosts there might not look on me favorably if I ever return, you see....
TH
-
Doug - good one!
And you are correct.
It's fun to "catch" Brains, isn't it?
Just watch it... every one of these means he's gonna catch you and I at least 25 times... I've gone down this road already, and it is a road to ruin....
TH
-
Tom IV,
I'm already on the road to ruin. Just ask my wife... ;D
All The Best,
-
Doug: You and me both, brother. Have our wives been chatting?
;)
TH
-
Another principle to support Chip's concepts about length/angle reward would be that many of today's better players do not need the advantage of the angle. The longer hitter tends to play the ball higher in my experience, so when they fly their approach all the way to the pin and stop it on a dime, coupled with superior knowledge and control of their distance, the angle rarely matters. He doesn't need an opening to funnel the ball to a pin. He doesn't care about a fronting hazard that he will easily fly. The only feature of green angle that matters to good players is depth, but I think a player would trade a 40-yard advantage for a few yards of green depth.
By setting up a better angle for the shorter line. it would seem to create a more appropriate shade of gray, incrementally improving the approach line by gradually decreasing your carry.
At the same time, the shorter shot must not simply be a bailout, for those that prefer an angle over length (low ball hitters, etc.) should still be forced to challenge some hazard.
Chip: It was a pleasure playing Machrihanish with you in the fall. Good to see you are getting some use out of and adding valuable design input to the site. I hope the bunkers are growing in nicely these days.
-
Doug
What's an extra syllable amongst friends? BTW, I'm still thinking about that "Fringe Achipalooza II" idea that you picked up so smoothly.......
Tom and Chip
I'm more of an "either/or" guy than the two of you. I don't have a "Subtlety Happens!" bumper sticker on my Toyota. Any hole that offers more than one serious choice is seriously too serious, IMHO. Just think about opne hole that I know and the two of you know, the 3rd at Doronch.
Once you get over the knee-jellying view of the links as you pass out of the shadows of the valley of the gorse you really have only 2 options. Aim the driver at the bunkers on the right and try to draw it though that narrow channel that will ultimately deposit it 100 yards or so from the green in the right light rough (or aim out at the gorse on the left and fade it to the same place, if you are of the Huckster's power fade persuasion), or wimp out and hit whatever club leaves you short of the fairway bunkers.
Option A gives you a wedge to the green, and a reasonable chance to get close to the pin. Option B gives you a mid-iron to the green and you wil get close only with your very very best shot, and may well not reach the green at all.
There is a further strategic interest to this hole. If you bail out on the dirver and end up right of the right bunkers, in the fescue rough, sharing stories with your friends who have reached the same position with their second, or third, or fourth, or fifth..........shots to the 14th, you can still get to the green, with an herioc shot. Likewise, if you duck hook the "safe" knife off the tee you can also find yourself near the green in two, with some skill and a little more luck.
Any more possibilities than this and my brain starts to hurt.......
Cheers
Rich
-
Tom IV,
yes our wives have been chatting--on GolfClubAtlasWidows.com :D
Rich,
Do you know when Archipalooza II is scheduled? I need to know so I can get to renting Max Yazgur's farm.. ;D
All The Best,
-
Rich, OK, gotcha, but it's not like I have a "Please Confuse the Hell Out of Me" bumper sticker on my car!
I kinda like a golf hole to be unclear. There are just so few of these, at least that I get to play, I really relish those that I do see.
Re 3 at Dornoch, fine example, great hole. But let's not confuse "strategic choices" with "possible outcomes" - your home course might have either/or for the former, but the latter is INFINITE! I know... I likely saw some outlying places you get to only very, very rarely....
Considering all possible outcomes makes my head hurt also. Considering strategic choices - that is, which route is BETTER FOR ME TO TRY, RIGHT NOW - when the answer isn't really clear - that is fun for me. I likely have done a very poor job explaining the difference but with all my participation here today my fingers are hurting!
TH
-
Doug:
GolfClubAtlasWidows.com
Now that's a scary thought! :-[
-
Tom
I feel your pain, and I agree with you.
Doug and Paul, et. al.
The website we should all be fearing is:
triallawyersforgolfclubatlaswidows.com
Rich
-
;D ;D ;D
Fantastic! Well said, Doug and Rich. Oh yes, maybe we ought to reserve those domain names now as a pre-emptive strike...
TH
-
Rich:
>triallawyersforgolfclubatlaswidows.com
No doubt this is the one to fear! :'( :'(
-
Rich Goodale
1) 5 iron/6 iron differences don't bother me. It's when the longer player has a 9 iron/5 iron advantage AND a better angle of attack that only he is able to achieve.
Example: #18 at NGLA. Only the long hitter is able to have a straight-on 2nd shot because only the long hitter can carry the left hand bunker off the tee. The more mortal player has to play to the right and, as a result, has to cross bunkers, aim at more bunkers and find a smaller landing area on his second shot! It happens that #18 is my favorite hole at National for other reasons (see "exceptions" in my reply to Mark Fine) but, like many other holes at NGLA, the longer hitter has a "design advantage" in addition to his inherent "length advantage". I suspect this was less so when fairways were unwatered and everybody's tee balls rolled 9 miles. I KNOW this was less so pre-titanium/Pro V1 when carry distances between players were less pronounced.
2) I'm all for risk/reward as long as the opportunity for reward isn't biased by a desuign feature (easier said than done, I know).
3) The longest shot is not always the "most expertly struck"
shot.
4) How on earth do you successfully "bunt" a 1 iron?? In fact, the degree of difficulty on a 1 iron is probably now higher than a driver given the emergence of 350cc clubheads, thin faces, COR yodda, yodda, yodda. That whole premise might be worth a thread all by itself. Or a good wager. Hmmmm.
5) Please note that Dornoch has no holes that display this problem (probably because there's very few doglegs and the problems on #17 are a pretty good long/short equalizer, I think).
Tom Huckaby:
Thanks for your support with Rich, but don't worry. He's smart enough to belong to Dornoch - he'll get it.
-
I'm with Rich on this one.
Chipar writes:
"...my problem with most "Cape" holes is that the longer hitter, after having "bitten off" more on the drive than the shorter hitter, usually has a more straight-forward approach angle to the green - and with a shorter club, as well! It seemes to me that the true "strategic Cape" would leave the SHORTER player with the easier angle/longer club and the longer hitter with the more challenging angle to compensate for the shorter club to be used."
It seems to me that Cape holes offer precisely the kind of risk/reward choice that good, strategically-designed holes ought to offer. (The "-designed" was added solely to defeat the dreaded Goodale anthropomorphic trap. Man, correct usage is a bitch.)
I think what Chipar really objects to is that Cape holes give an inordinate amount of "reward" for "risk" taken on. You get the benefits of shortening the hole and a better angle into the green with a shorter club. Sort of a triple pay-off.
But that's ok. Given that the "reward" is greater on Cape holes than is typical on many other strategically-designed holes, you are likely to take on even more "risk" than you might otherwise. The calculus has a way of balancing itself out.
The wonderful edginess of that calculus is undermined if the shorter player is given the best angle for his approach.
-
Isn't a mark of the well designed course one that offers a variety of these different features, ie one that has holes where the longer but still reasonably accurate shot profits vs the shorter and holes where the shorter but better placed shot offers an advantage over the longer but less accurate? I agree that if every hole offers a distinct advantage to the longer ball, it'd get pretty boring. I've not played it, but doesn't Pinehurst #2 offer both of these features but generally place a premium on placement for angles to greens?
-
Back to Bobby Jones' quote and the question about holes which exemplify this ---
I think MacKenzie's courses really utilize the closer to danger, the better the shot concept beautifully. A good example is #3 at Valley Club, a long par 4 (436 yards), slightly doglegged to the right, deep creek/barranca to the right all the way to the green, and a very steeply pitched green, very fast, with its axis pointed almost into the creek. It's pretty obvious Dr. MacKenzie designed it like this for two reasons: (1) if you hit it up the left side and want to reach the green, you'll be hitting a long iron or fairway wood into that green at an almost impossible angle to hold the green; and (2) if you want to play it cautiously, you'll have to lay up in front, toward the creek, in order to have a pitch straight up the axis. Only with a tee shot dangerously close to the barranca will you have a shot reasonably straight up the green.
Same course, the incredible 16th hole, about the same length, has a large fairway bunker 60 yards in front of the green on the left side. Anything less than your best tee shot and this bunker is definitely in play. But you have to stay as close to the bunker and the left side as possible because the green has a steep bank on the right side. Pitching onto the green from the right side of the fairway is similar to the pitch from behind the 8th at Pebble!
Can't wait to get back to the Valley Club!
-
Chip
I thought I had posted a very pithy riposte, but it seems to have been gobbled up in cyberspace. This will undoubtedly be inferior, but c'est la vie!
1. The "bunt 1-iron" is something betwen a forward defensive shot and a square cut in cricket. Sort of a punch shot that rolls out there 220-230 from which point you takes your chances again.
2. I'm still struggling with the concept of bunting it out there and having a better angle to the pin. I've only played most of your examples once or nonece, but my memories of 4 and 5 from the tips at Merion a few months ago were 2 480 yard holes that didn't reward any subtlety off the tee unless your given name was Eldrick or you were playing for a 5.
3. The 5 iron/6 iron statement should probably be epxressed as that conundrum when you are 170 from the 14th at Dornoch and you can either try to fly a 6-7 iron at the pin on the rock hard green or knock down a 4-5 iron and bounce it up onto the putting surface. I normally fail at either approach, but I do remember Watson in 1981 sticking an 8-iron, downwind.
4. That is what I mean by the expertly played shot, well beyond my ken, not to mention my ability.......
5. I'm still willing to be convinced, however........
-
Mr. Oat,
Well said.
Rich Goodale,
What the hell is a "bunt one iron?"
Syd: As only I know you, Your points about Merion are well recieved, even if the fifteenth doesn't fit the true definition of a "Cape". It sure as hell plays like it.
I come to GCA with a playing background, and am trying to expand my horizons. ( so well put by Tom Paul a while back. )
Having played the fifth at Mid Ocean probably twenty times, I can say that length doesn't always equate to an easier shot. A second shot from 125 yards on that hole, played from the left side of the fairway to a back left hole location is not easier. The desired approach is from the right side, no matter where the hole. At Merion, the fifteenth cannot be approached from anywhere if the hole is in the front, and back right is every bit as difficult, even from Golf Course Road.
The point I am trying to drunkenly (too many Glenlivets) to make is this: On any given day, one must select the route
to take that is given to you, and it varies for each player. How do you Feel? How is your ball striking? What can you hit to give you the best opportunity to reach the target.OPTIONS,OPTIONS, OPTIONS! THAT IS WHAT A WELL DESIGNED COURSE WILL GIVE YOU! A 475 yard straight away par 4 doesn't present too many options. On a previous post I stated that a good , well designed course, we are playing chess. The board never changes, we do. I am not as well traveled as some who inhabit GCA, but I am willing to try.
Knowing Mr. Oat as only I do, The name is Chip, Charles or Syd, not Chipar(what is that? A typo?)
I haven't had much of an opportunity to reflect on course design with Mr. Oat but I plan to pursue this as soon as I take care of an obligation arising from a trip into paradise on earth last fall.
Syd- I have never forgotten the idea of a three day trip to The National, Maidstone and Shinnecock. 2002 is the best time I can think of.
Sorry for the ramble
-
To me this is one of the biggest no-brainers I have yet encountered on GCA & I hereby nominate Chip's first post as Post of the Year 2002 - I look forward to reading more lucid points backed up by strong argumentation in the future.
Yes, variety is key to golf course architecture & surely a great design will have many ways to entice & tempt all players, but when comparing two cape holes like Chip does, I'll take the one that forces all players to think every time. Tom Doak stated in one of his books that the problem with most holes with alternate fairways and/or diagonal hazards is that the choice is too straightforward; a competent player knows his carry distances so well that the choice is largely made for him. (Of course, the beauty of being as inconsistent as me is that every shot holds more interest 'cause you never know what's coming next:)!)
Rich, I'm a little surprised that you don't agree with Chip - didn't you indicate that some courses in the UK feature "turbo boosts" that are usually found through accuracy & not purely length.
As Chip pointed out, if the difference in question is simply 5 iron/6 iron, the situation is not as interesting, but if the choice is 5 iron vs. 9 iron or PW, I think it becomes much more interesting. Me, I'll take a 9 iron to a shallow green over a 5 iron to a long skinny green any day plus Sunday. But others who can work the ball might disagree.
I suppose the ideal situation would be a hole where a properly placed tee shot with driver could result in the same angle as a properly placed long iron would be the best of both worlds. This would reward the long accurate driver over the simply long driver. I haven't played enough good courses to give you a hole like this, but I'm sure they're out there.
If I'm not mistaken, I thought one of the original concepts of Augusta was that there were places where the shorter drive to the preferred side of the fairway was better than the longer drive to the less preferred side.
-
Mr. Spellman
Please let me know if the post immediately above yours which describes the "bunt 1-iron" is not clear enough. Think of it as Tiger's "stinger" executed by a 55-year old body controlled by a mind which still thinks it is 25......
Mr. Pazin
I will second your nomination for Mr.Oat's post as post of the year. I enter the fray only to try to elicit more comments fom the man himself, and others such as you who can contribute. I tried to answer the 5/6 iron question in the same post referenced above. Vis a vis "turbo boosts" (or "fast lanes" as I prefer to refer to them--like that cadence!) the ones I know exist only for hte long and straight hitter. No bunt 1- Iron down the left hand side of the 14th at Dronoch is going to get anywhere but short.
Mr. Goodale
-
GeoffreyC, Doug_Wright et al
Since, upon more reflection last night than my wife appreciates, I've determined that #14 at Fishers Island does not, in fact, require an angled carry across a hazard off the tee, I hereby amend my assertion that "all" Cape holes that I've played have this "bite off as much........". It seems to me that MOST of them do.
Incidentally, since the 14th at Fisher's requires a drive as close to danger (the left side pond) as possible to best set up the approach to the green, this hole qualifies as a Merion-like strategic epitome of what RTyreJ referred to in Mark Huxford's kick-off to this thread.
BCrosby
I see your point but, like trees in the fairway, it's not for me.
Chris Hunt
Glad to see a practicing golf architect on the site - are you still in Scotland full-time?
I remember our round at Machrahanish well - you ought to start a thread on upgrading the last 2 holes there. Pretty anti-climactic, I think - especially #18.
As to this thread, I have 2 thoughts:
1) So angle the hell out of greens when you build them and protect the short side with penal bunkers, etc.
2) I'm certain your assertion that today's pro's are unchallenged by the precise short iron shot is true. I doubt that's equally true for the good amateur. I hope the shot values and degree of difficulty in my design preferences are relevant to all except the very best. If not, then it's time for me to find a new hobby!
Tom Huckaby, Mark Huxford (and whoever's interested)
Re: NGLA as strategic design then and now
In 1908 (and until 19??), before the left side problems could be carried, #'s 17 and 18 at National offered no "design advantage" to the long hitter and were, in fact, the perfect examples of what I espouse.
Think about it. On #18, the closer you drove it to the left hand bunker, the easier the angle on your second shot (still true today). MacDonald simply didn't have to consider the possibility of anyone carrying that big yawning bunker. Q.E.D., the closer to danger, the easier the next becomes. This, BTW, is what I believe makes Merion so terrific.
On #17, nobody carried that left-side hazard in 1908. The only way to get there was with a well played draw that rolled 150 yards down the unwatered fairway. Erego, if a player was able to hit it way down there by playing the more talented (not just longer) shot, he was SUPPOSED to be rewarded with a better angle of attack.
Was there a length advantage back then? Of course. Was there a design advantage given to the long hitter? I bet not.
In the days of the ground game and the 1.62" ball, NGLA was (mostly) the ultimate pure strategic course.
Like you, I think the proper course of action is to enjoy the National for the wonderful golf experience it has always been and limit any changes to the academic discussions on this site!
To All
Thanks for your interest in the posts. Tom Paul has reminded me on another thread that #10 Riviera is probably the best example of demanding short iron approaches. He's right - it totally got by me.
Rich Goodale
Remember Lee Trevino's punch line on avoiding lightening by carrying a 1 iron high overhead because "even God can't hit a 1 iron"?
-
Great stuff in this discussion. I just got to see it this morning.
#10 at Riviera was just mentioned. I don't have my copy of George Thomas' book here but I distinctly remember several diagrams of holes in there that fit Chip's wishes for "fair" strategic holes where the longer drive over trouble leaves a shorter but potentially more hazardous approach.
For the experts out there - was this one of his design principals?
-
Chip
I do remember Trevino's punchline, and the fact that I still carry a 1-iron in this age of 240 yard 4-irons and 300 yard power 3-metals really, really dates me........
-
I'm intrigued with Tom's "what if" scenario of angling the 17th green at NGLA in the opposite direction. Now let's say you leave the fairway bunker in the middle of the fairway alone, but you remove the far right fairway bunker.
This gives the long hitter something to really think about. The long hitter can take a direct line to the green by biting off the carry bunker and skirting the left edge of the center bunker. Obviously, this is the shortest route and would be desireable, but the green would not be at the optimum angle. At the same time, the long hitter could go to the right of the center bunker. This would slightly lengthen the hole, but would give an optimum angle to the green.
Rich, I'm interested in how you feel about the above scenario. I'm wondering if this idea fits into your preference of the longer hitter having the favorable angle into the green.
-
Jeff
My preference is only that the long and straight shot be rewarded, particularly if it is made in the face of significant risk. Your and Tom H's scenario for the revised 17th at NGLA is intriguing, even though CB is probably rolling over in his grave and Gib Papazian choking on his cellphone as I type. For this to really work (in my universe) the green would have to be canted slightly from left to right, so that the long hitter from "position A" on the right of the fairway would have a more receptive green to hit into, while the shorter hitter would have to execute a very good shot from the left to keep his approach on the green. In this universe, the shorter hitter could also lay up short of the center bunker and thus gain the advantage of the green slopes, while sacrificing some additional distance.
Of course, I've only played the real hole once, and I chopped it badly (trying to forget, but this site won't let me!), so what do I know.......
Cheers
Rich
-
Is this what you wanted? I don't care for it as much as the original. It takes away the incentive to go left especially if it is firm as is the case often enough at NGLA.
NGLA 17 flipped greensite
(http://home.earthlink.net/~leftygolfer/_images/NGLA17flip.jpg)
-
Chip, et al...
I have to agree with your concept and disagree with Mark and and Rich.
Last time out, I tried to play strategy on the first three holes... couldn't hit an iron to save my life. After that I just pulled out the driver and plunked it 300-320. "Perfect" every time. Good thing I didn't need to think about the holes. This is the way I played as a kid. Driver and half-wedge all day long.
I have come across holes that are better played with some thought. Full driver leaves you right in front, but 30 feet below the green, a 3 iron leaves you with a 9 in, and level shot. I like them much more than the driver/wedge holes.
Because one CAN hit it long with accuracy, shouldn't mean that is the best way to play the hole. This should be a thinking man's game, not a strong man's game.
-
Rich Goodale
At the risk of sounding like a nag, it appears you're entirely comfortable with a hole that is designed such that the long straight hitter ALSO gets a better angle of attack than our poor guy who flushes it off the tee about the same distance as you bunt your 1 iron. I have chosen to coin this condition "design advantage for the longer hitter" with the full realization that about a zillion other people have already called it the same thing before I got sucked into this thread. I'm inferring from your earlier posts that you believe the guy who knocked it over the corner of the trouble has successfully played a "riskier" shot and is, therefore, entitled to the fruits of his labors.
This may be the source of our difference as I don't believe the longer hitter has (necessarily) executed a relatively more difficult shot - he's hit the same shot longer than Mr. Cashmere Insert because he can! (The same reason a dog licks.....). Now, if landing areas are more narrow further out yadda yadda yadda then your point is well taken. However, none of the examples I've cited make it more difficult for Old Thunder Buns to find his ball. In fact, the landing area is often wider!
Erego, I dissent.
GeoffreyC
Thanks for putting up that graphic!
Although I'm no practicing architect, it seems to me that a "reversed #17 doesn't entirely "take away the incentive", as you suggested, to go left so much as it reduces the obvious benefit of doing so. That's it! That's what I like!! That's one of the 2 points I was trying to make on my first post!!!
Bill Coggins
Thanks for your support. Every piece of ground probably offers the opportunity for at least one "in your face" hole that requires a heroic shot or two where the strong man has the clear edge. Most of those holes, though, are pretty much straight-away where the angle of attack is the same for all after the tee shot. Great par 4 finishing holes usually fit this description, I think.
Let's keep building those holes, too. As you (and I) say, though, limit Mr. Big to his fair advantage and make him think a little on the other holes.
Cheers
-
Chip,
I was thinking of your musings on Merion last night and it occurred to me that you are eminently correct. It has always struck me that in designing the course, Wilson really laid out the holes where playing close to the hazards really set up the best angles or positions from which to play your next shot. Much in the same way that you cite FI #14, the same could be said about a handful of holes at Merion. This was Wilson's main substitute for the room and length he lacked. I do think some of the aggressive mowing for the 81 open took away some of these routes. Doak noted this in the Confidential Guide. The one example I'm thinking of is on 14 where aiming for the right bunker would have provided the best line into the hole (and the shorter hitter option), but with the fairway narrowed, that bunker rarely comes into play.
Bill Spellman -
I was thinking about what you said - taking a personal inventory of your game when negotiating drives where you need to bite off the hazard. This has occurred to me at the 6th @ Pine Valley. I can't tell you the thoughts that go through my head standing on the tee - "maybe i'll play short, but I really didn't hit that two iron well on 5," or "maybe i'll go for it, because i really nailed that drive on 4, and right in the correct spot." Nor do I think this is coincidental.
We think about strategy as being something absolute (longer, shorter routes), rather than thinking about it on a relative basis focusing on the player and his round up to the point where he is forced to make up his mind.
-
Chip
If I didn't mention the "narrowing" concept, I was remiss. I'm not advocating the "250-yard carry into an open field or wimp out 45 degrees right or left" school of architecture. The risk I am thinking about in the risk/reward calculation involves the requirement for accuracy too. Think of the 14th at Dornoch. There is a channel to the left that can take you to within 120 yards of the green if you hit it hard and on the button and get the right bounces off hte humps in the fairway. If you miss a few degrees right, however, you are up againt the bank at 280 from the tee, and if you miss it a couple of degrees left you land in the soft dunesland and your ball goes nowhere. Alternatively you can hit your 250-260 yard shot to the middle of the fiarway and have one of the most challenging and fascinating shots in all of golfdom.
Actually, the 120 yard shot ain't easy either......
-
Not that anyone needs my view on this, but here it is:
Chipoat, who admires "subtle strategic holes that require precision and thought regardless of wind and the players' length," and Bill Coggins, who says that golf should be "a thinking man's game, not a strong man's game," have said my mouthful for me.
Which is not to say that ALL holes should fail to reward accurate length. Some should. But they don't ALL need to. They don't even MOSTLY need to. I think Chipoat is right that some holes should, in fact, reward the shorter tee ball, provided it's properly placed.
Call me a short hitter (I'm not, really), but I personally find the greatest pleasure in holes requiring deft touch and thoughtful placement from tee to green. I know that driver/3-wood par-4s are part of the game, and always should be (that's what the pro game is missing), but the courses that have one long par-4 after another and a bunch of 200-yard par-3s (US Open-style courses) just aren't much fun, if you ask me.
-
Dan
I'm all for everything that you and Chip and Bill are for. Don't quite know how I managed to put myself in the hole of chief advocate of the 800-pound gorillas out there.
In can imagine the holes Chip talks about, and have played many of them. All I'm really trying to say is that if one of these holes has a "position A" which is 230 yards to the left and an inferior "position B" which is 270 yards to the left, can't the strong player just hit his 2-iron or whatever to position A, and still be better off than the weaker player because he will be using less club to get to the green from that place? If this is the case, I think this sort of hole is weaker and less interesting than a similar hole where "position B" was more desirable but very risky to get to. Am I still missing the subtleties of the counter-argument?
Cheers
Rich
-
GeoffreyC,
That's what I was thinking. As I was typing the post, I realized that this change would essentially make the hole a dogleg left instead of right.
-
Rich -- I'm finally seeing what you're saying: that even on the holes Chip and the rest of us are endorsing, the long hitter will still have an advantage. Fine. Correct. Nothing we can do about that.
(The phrase "bunt 1-iron" must've thrown me off the trail. I've hit some pretty nice 1-irons, but I sure can't "bunt" them out there 230.)
My counter-argument (my argument for SOME holes where Position A is shorter off the tee than Position B) is this: It's good to have some holes where brains may prevail over brawn. And I think we've all seen abundant evidence that a lot of 800-pound gorillas will NEVER figure out that shorter can be better.
Which is not to argue that the type of hole you outline (where Position A is long and risky) is a bad idea. Of course it's not. It's a good idea. But I don't think it's the only good idea.
(As to how you got into "the hole of chief advocate of the 800-pound gorillas out there"? I don't know -- but they make some pretty big holes. Watch your step!)
-
Rich:
Yes you are missing some of the subtleties of the other argument.
You know from experience as well as I do that a golfer who can hit the ball 270yds may do so even if he knows that shot might be risky and even if he knows his next shot might be riskier than hitting a drive 230yds with a next shot from a greater distance that might be LESS risky!
Why is that? Because the additional 40yds is very alluring! Face it, hitting the ball far is one of the more alluring elements in golf and the way various golfers look at the risk/reward factors of options varies as much as their physical capabilities! The way golfers look at various options and combinations of them is anything but consistent! There is nothing black or white about all this!
This is the tortoise and hare analogy in effect. The clever designer understands this as well as we do and mostly much better! There is something very sublime about this delicate balancing of risk/reward factors across the spectrums of options as single shots or combinations of them! It all boils down to a designer pitting brawn against brains and the balancing of risk/reward factors of options he provides to do so.
The designer knows a few things for sure. 1/ The Hare can do anything the tortoise can (if he uses his head) but that the tortoiese cannot do anything the hare can (hit it as far). This is a lot of what Chip Oat is saying, I think!
Everything sort of boils down to the way various golfers weigh capability against temptation. It's sort of like what Oscar Wilde liked to say: "I can resist anything except temptation!"
Clever designer understand this well!
-
Tom Dan and Chip
I think we are agreeing on all of this. As to why people seem to be on my case these days, it is NOT becuase I am paranoid! No, it is a curious phenomenon that while I'm trying to be all sweetness and light, others are taking up my cudgel and using it on me. What sad iorny......and, OUCG......
I still think Hunter's quote is fantastic. It tells us that great golf hole continuously teach us something about themselves and our games--if we are willing to learn. Not bad for an old dead guy.....
PS--my paranoia is NOT increaseddue to the fact that this is the 3rd time I've tried to post this post. Is it a case of 2 Doyens opposing each other, like powerful magnets?
-
Mark and Chipoat,
First, great thread and discussion. The kind I, at least, look for on this site. As someone noted on the "prevailing wind" thread, many here do not appear to feel comfortable enough to discuss specific holes or concepts, but get into a pissing contest (I imagine the prevailing wind knowledge WOULD come in handy there) about specific architects, etc.
Chip (if I may call you that)
I believe Mr. Doak in anatomy of a golf course states your position. Pete Dye agrees with you, too. He and I discussed this at length one morning, and (as of 1995) he said he had started bunkering "inside"-"inside" to counteract the good players distance and control, leaving the open route for the shorter hitter.
I call the inside-outside bunkering shown in the photo at the top of the thread the "position paradox" bunkering, where the golfer really, really (insert your own number of really's here) wants to/needs to carry the bunker off the tee to complete the hole successfully. While I think it is the purest form of strategy, I agree that it does give the long hitter too much of an advantage. As you point out, he already has an advantage. And when the average golfer asks "what if I can't carry the bunker?" I have never found the answer "You're screwed" to sit well to the inquirer.
This is the probably reason for the "demise of the carry bunker" in modern architecture relative to its use in the golden age. We have generally moved to the "inside"-"inside" bunkering to provide a "golfers choice" hole, with two equally valid options, based on the strengths of the player's game.
There are a few other factors to consider.....I agree with what Tom Doak said here once about "good players being too conservative, and average players being too aggressive" and think it factors into the design equation. The odd part is that Paul Pro would more likely than not play a conservative tee shot safely wide of the bunker he could carry with all but his worst shot, and Andy ametuer would likely attempt an unlikely carry! However, a few of these per round are lots of fun for Andy.
The approach shot is influenced by more than the bunker position. As one pro told me, "Average golfers look at the surrounding hazards, pros look at the green contours in planning approach shots." Facing major upslope of the green to one side or the other is a bigger factor to better players.
If, in the first photo, the basic slope of the green drains to the fairway approach, that helps stop the shot. If it drains towards the bunker, the golfer coming over the bunker gets some backstop help, and if capable, would club up about half a club and hit for more backspin to take the bunker out of play. The golfer coming from the left has an opening, and perhaps needs to use it, because he has less back to front slope to help his shot. He can hit with more spin to stop the shot, or with a soft spin below the hole, using the front of the green - not an option when coming from the right - leaving a better chance for an uphill putt.
The pro would also look at any contour "spikes" coming in from the side of the green that may deflect a good shot away. A spike on the left would probably send him right off the tee, one right, would send him left.
Again, the architect has the choice of "loading up" all these factors to favor the carry, load them up in favor of playing conservatively, or mix and match them to get what Jeremy Glenn once referred to as "random strategy".
I think the Leven hole is best reserved for downwind situations, as it makes the tee shot carry more tempting, and the frontal opening perhaps more necessary to stop the shot, as downwinds take spin off the ball. The inside-inside is great, IMHO, for long 4's into the wind, its a great test for the good player, or it forces him into an even longer - or perhaps his only - long iron shot of the round. Mr. short guy probably lays up in front and avoids the hazards with perhaps a half decent chance of halving the hole.
Of course, the land also dictates which is used, and in a general sense, there is no reason both couldn't and shouldn't exist, perhaps even on the same golf course. :)
-
SPDB
Well designed courses require a particular " method of play" that is always flexible. I believe that the architect designs in much the same way. In other words, the architect say that a particular approach will yield the OPPORTUNITY for success, given the remainder of shots be properly excecuted. If you err with one of your shots, then depending on the mistake, the consequences could be difficult to overcome, save the miraculous recovery or putt.
When approaching a round of golf, doesn't it make sense to have a plan of attack for the day? Just as in battle, plans are sometimes changed and dictaded by the enemy( in this case the course) or the way that you feel, maybe the wind direction is uncomfortable or maybe you put on the wrong jockey shorts. Seriously, anything can cause you to be uncomfortable with the shot required. Now the key is finding a club and swing that is comfortable. Gary Palyer won the '62 PGA at Aronomink using a 4 wood from the tee because he could drive it past the right fairway bunkers, but not reach the left side bunkers. At that time I believe Aronomink was a 7000 yard par 70, and at that time, that was very long. His strategy worked, but I wonder if he deviated from it due to unforseen circumstances.
The great courses will do that-require a strategy going in, but ask you to make adjustments as you go along.
-
Jeff
You say:
"And when the average golfer asks "what if I can't carry the bunker?" I have never found the answer "You're screwed" to sit well to the inquirer."
Because it does not "sit well" does not mean it is an invalid answer. That's why good golf holes accommodate players of varying ability and their alternative strategies.
To me, at least, "You're/I'm Screwed" is a very, very valid statment in sports. It is what:
--The manager says to a weak batter who has to face Pedro Martinez at the peak of his form
--You or I would feel trying to return a serve from Pete Sampras (or even Venus Williams :)
--John Stockton says when he finds himself in the paint with Shaq
One of the great beauties of golf is that EVEN WHEN WE ARE SCREWED, WE CAN STILL FIND A WAY TO PLAY THE HOLE!!!!
Surely, successful and insightful architects like yourself and Pete Dye understand this very, very (insert your favourite number of "very"s) well.......
Cheers
Rich
-
JeffB:
Interesting about your "inside"-"inside" remark and strategy (and Dye's too). I assume what you mean by that is bunkering the inside on the tee shot and the same side by the green.
Donald Ross, I think, wrote that in his opinion that was not a good idea! He said it "loaded up one side" unnecessarily and likely made strategy a bit too obvious or maybe what some call dictating play. Something like that seems to create a bit of "reverse dogleg" effect where the better play might be to the outside of the dogleg for all.
We have a hole like that at Gulph Mills that has moved over the years from a dogleg left to a slight dogleg right now. The original hole had an enormous berm (7ft high) to carry on the inside of the left dogleg. Some committee person put his own bunker on the outside of the left dogleg (on the right side) in the 1930s obviously to catch the majority of the tee shots on the outside steering well away from the berm on the inside. In 1965 RTJ turned the hole into a slight dogleg right, left the committee add-on bunker on the right, took out the enormous berm and put two bunkers on the outside where the berm had been.
But the hole has always been beautifully bunkered up by the green on the right side! So now the hole may be tweaked to more of a dogleg right than in the last 35 years and Gil wants to move that bunker on the right upfield about ten yards and remove the RTJ bunkering that is on the left (outside of the now right dogleg).
I say just take the right side committee add-on bunker out and basically have no bunkering at all on the tee shot. I say even widen the fairway through where the old committee bunker is now after its removal.
Golfers will stand on the tee and see that the shortest tee shot is up the right side and is completely unencumbered so that should be the way most unthinking golfers go--basically the shortest distance. BUT, the bunkering on the right up by the green will be very hard to effectively carry from the rightside and the best play will actually be to the outside of the dogleg on the left (to get in position to avoid the right greenside bunkering)--making the best way to play the hole a "reverse dogleg"! The play up the left side is effective longer anyway made more so be a rise accross the fairway in the LZ.
So to me this is better and very early Rossian too. Basically the hole gives you no indication what to do on the tee shot and most golfers will just take the shortest route up the right and realize that have just put themselves in trouble for their approach!!
I really like this because it is so early Ross--which just suckered the golfer into a false sense of security with a great big wide unencumbered fairway. All the challenge is on the second shot by that right fairway bunker! This is more evidence of Ross being one of the best and certainly subtlest "approach shot architects"!
And I really like this because the entire strategy of the hole revolves around only one bunker and the one up to the right of the green and very effectively so! This forces a player to really pay attention and think ahead to the second shot only when on the tee because the tee shot appears to have no meaning at all!!
How many players will think ahead to the second shot with no strategic indication at all on the tee shot? I submit there are numerous members who may never figure it out! They will be making more bogies with two reasonable shots than they can ever understand!
I love stuff like that!
-
Rich:
Don't get on Jeff Brauer for suggesting it's not a good idea to say "You're screwed!"
There was a time, not that long ago, Jeff was terrorized at a hockey game by an irate 800lb gorrilla golfer of one of his courses, and saying to the gorrilla "you're screwed" didn't seem real appropriate at the time.
Plus Jeff is bigger than you are and if it's not appropriate for him to suggest "you're screwed" it shouldn't be for you either, unless you want to get pounded by 800lbs gorillas and Jeff Brauer too!
I don't want you to take this personally now and go getting parnoid on me!
Oh, by the way, I see you're now a Doyen! Congratulations! But you're just a little bitty Doyen in short pants compared to a wise old Doyen like me. And remember I'm so far ahead of you it won't be likely you'll ever see my taillights! Of course that doesn't apply on the golf course!
-
Let me add a wrinkle.
Anyone know of any holes where Position A is not only considerably shorter off the tee than Position B, but is also considerably riskier to reach?
What do you think of that combo, Doyen Paranoid ... um, Goodale?
I can think of only one, off the top of my head, and it's a GREAT hole. It has NO history, but a very impressive pedigree.
Take a look at it. It's Hole No. 1 on Jeremy Glenn's Reverse Old Course.
-
Kelly Moran's 6th hole at Hawk Pointe is a cool wrinkle on what we're talking about. It's about 330 yards, and just this side of undriveable for almost anyone.
The green is similar to the 16th at North Berwick, except it's not set on a diagonal. Think a sideways Biarritz, on steroids.
You drive slightly uphill to a flat landing spot about 220 yards from the tee, with bunkers on the left side of the fairway and a wooded area on the right. This spot is ideal, though not apparent. It also happens to be the toughest place to hit.
Beyond the top of the hill the fairway widens considerably, and sweeps downhill to the green. Almost everyone loads up off the tee, and with the downsloping fairway, gets within 75 yards of the green.
What do they find? A half or 3/4 shot, from a downhill, sidehill lie, to a pin location almost always on the very shallow, steeply uphill left or right quadrants of the green. At that point, "you're screwed". Incidentally, the left and right quadrants are fronted by deep bunkers, and although you can play one up the middle, it goes against impulse from that short distance. And, if you do, you are left with a putt that you'll three-jack at least half the time.
You sit there and look backwards....back to the top of the hill, wishing you were a full iron shot from a flat lie because you now know that there is no other way to fly the ball to the hole locations and stop it.
Now, we're talking!
-
Hey guys, this is good stuff! I think a Goodale, Paul, Cirba, Kelly 4-some could be in order some day...
And, TEP, you are very, very (insert the proper number of "verys" here) close to 500 posts. My mind boggles to see what sort of title Ran will bestow on you on that most solemn day......
Please try to remember us little people......even those of us who are mini-doyens......
-
Rich and TEPaul,
I said that the Rossian, or general Golden Age charm is probably the strongest strategy. However, there are reasons not to use it all the time. One is that each hole should be different in concept. Another is to favor certain types of play throughout the round.
Its similar to when Bush and Gore debated in the election, for example. I don't have the transcripts, or anything, but I guarantee you both said "It's good for America" at some point. What they meant was "It's (insert as many reallys as you want here) good for my biggest donors. In golf architecture, and in politics, there are no absolutes, just winners and losers for funding, power etc.
The "inside - Outside" hazards of the Leven hole are really (insert your.....oh, never mind) good for the long player. Should the designer choose, he may favor that on a few holes, but should also find ways to favor the players who rely on accuracy and skillful recovery on other holes. I side with Chipoats, in that of 18 holes, I would favor length on only 3-5, not an even 6-6-6 split, figuring that length was, in many ways, its own reward in the form of shorter shots, and an implied greater accuracy by virtue of using a shorter iron.
Perhaps I was generalizing a bit too much about all us architects taking out carry bunkers, but that's my opinion, and I'm sticking with it. And, as far as the You're Screwed remark, (1 - I am sure there are plenty of players out there mentally saying I screwed them! and 2) - Just trying to inject some humor and entertainment in the discussion. Perhaps I am the only one who thinks the sound of that is funny, but imagine yourself at a grand opening, watching your owner thrash about on one of his brand new holes. "Why can't I play this hole, Jeff? At least I have my answer ready!
But as I mentally flesh out a hole, I have got to consider the various constituencies, and there are sure a lot more average players than good ones showing up a your course on any given day. Choosing the multiple options that allow each a way to play the hole is a must. Playing a long iron over bunkers to a green is just a tough, tough shot for most.
I always have believed that if the golfer makes that decision, rather than have the architect dictate it, he finds he is clever. If the architect does dictate, well then he just screwed the golfer. Thinking back to the MacKenzie Lido hole, I wonder how many people then - or now - would actally stand on a tee and pick a route guaranteeing they couldn't get home in par figures? I think most people hit the tee shot, and if anywhere in the fairway, think they deserve a shot at the green. Even the hackers! What's the phrase - "I didn't come out here to lay up"
Perhaps the question is best answered by going back to Mark's original Bobby Jones quote ....."there are two ways of WIDENING the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one". That is the view of a very good player.
The question is, do we want to widen the gap on all holes, or just make tee shots or equal length, but different sides of the fairway "equal but different" in the type of shot required to attain the green? If you say, let players with all kinds of different shot pattern a chance to get to the green, you design one way. If you want to reward a particular type of tee shot, ie long, you design another.
there have been supporters of both positions on this thread. I would support either in particular circumstances, and both on the same course.
-
TEPaul,
Rememeber now, I have only been to Gulph Mills once. I am guessing your description is either 11 or 13? Of course, last time I guessed 3, and you were talking about 5.
Your 11th, which has the zig-zag fairway Ross liked, but which I think was renovated was one of my favorites.
-
I frankly enjoy all these strategic examples. I love Chip's idea about not always rewarding length and not always rewarding the center of the fairway when not flirting with a hazard. But also enjoy Mark Fine's and Rich's more orthodox stratagies, as well as the Bauer/Dye and Paul/Ross examples and many others. The point is they are all valid, but following anyone or even two of these recipes and the resulting designs would become more formumatic then they need be. In my mind variety is the key and the more you mix and match these strategies, the more interesting and less predicatable the design will be. Also nearly all these strategies have included some kind of hazard, I think one of the best ways to make the long hitter think (or throw him off a bit) is by way of severe, or not so severe, contours or undulations -- which may not be blatently visable or obvious when contemplating a shot. I also believe if you have an interesting property to work that the land might simply suggest many of these differing strategies -- in other words by randomly placing bunkers on a given hole where the ground suggests they might look natural, that one of these strategies may reveal itself.
-
JeffB:
You've got both a good memory and good taste! The hole I mentioned is #13 and #11 is a Perry Maxwell's 1930s redesign from a 229yd uphill par 3 to a 325yds par 4!
Tom MacW:
I hear you on not ever getting formulaic! Basically, I believe you just have to look at any hole and just see what it can give you strategically and make the design really play into that.
On hole #13, that I talked about, I see that as a sort of a unique opportunity to do one of the neatest things a hole can do, and that is to have a single feature, in this case an apparently insignificant little greenside bunker radiate really effective strategy all the way back to the tee all by itself!! If done correctly it can to that all by itself!!
On the tee shot there would then seem to be no strategy at all. But there is! And it all revolves around that one bunker at greenside right! This forces golfers to look past the tee shot for strategic indication! It forces them to realize they should plan shots when no planning seems necessary on the first shot!
How can you get better than that? As Behr said: it forces the golfer to plan not for an immediate liability but for some future liability! You can't get better than that! In a nutshell that's what strategy is all about! #13 could become a great wakeup call to what strategy is really all about!
-
To All
You guys have put some great stuff up in the last 12 hours and I have meetings all day. Please don't abandon this thread over the weekend as I still want to play.
SPDB
1) I'll put up a post re: #8 at Rockaway - see that thread.
2) You hit 2 iron on the 5th at Pine Valley??
Rich Goodale
Re: that 4 ball you suggested a few posts back. No way you guys play that round in less than 6 hours unless you confine all golf architecture talk to the bar and the lunch/dinner table!
Cheers
-
Chip
Get on out there and keep this economy moving! We'll keep the thread going for you.
As for that "dream team" 4-ball, I can vouch for the speed of Paul and Cirba and myself. Tom is the only one of us who talks at all about GCA while on the course, but he does so in Trevino fashion, in the middle of his swing so that it does not at all hold up play. In fact, it is quite a special pleasure to see him walk up to a ball and soon later notice that somewhere in between "line of charm....." and "maintenance meld....." he has actually stuck his 6-iron to 3 feet. If he is your partner, of course. Mike and I promise not to bore you in the bar for more than an hour with the story about how we both drove to within a few yards of Hogan's marker on the 18th at Merion and then both hit OUR 1-irons onto the green.... As for Dan Kelly, I don't know, but as he's from Minnesota, where the golfing season is between Independence Day and Labor Day, I'm sure he'll do anything we want him to do if we can just get him a game.....
Cheers
Rich
-
Rich,
And, of course we won't tell them that we were playing from the NEW, 490 yard tee on 18 at Merion either...not from 458 like that wussy Bantam Ben. ;)
-
Yeah, Mike
And before some wuss starts to weigh in with some sort of comment about "technology", I've just gotta say it:
"GCA guys are GOOD!"
-
Mike, Rich:
Did you guys really hit it to the Hogan marker on 18 from the new "way back" tee? I can BARELY get it to the fairway with my best.
That hole, by the way, has it all design-wise. Length, heroic shot(s) required, strategy (2nd shot sets up better from more dangerous left side off the tee) and subtlety (better long than short - the chip shot from the back is MUCH easier than from the swale in front). Although it's not the visual stunner that #13 at Pine Valley is, I think it's a better golf hole.
If there's never been a Merion vs. Pine Valley thread on the site, feel free to start one. However, please wait until this thread's run its course as I just don't have time for 2 "hot button" threads at once!
Got to go.
-
The way back tee frightens me. To give you some idea of the speed of the ground the last time I played Merion (admittedly is was 101 deg.), from the back tees, i took my line down the left side of the fairway catching the slope and was left with rough 115 yds in up the hill.
that is firm and fast :D
Chip Oat - Yes, I hit 2 iron on 5 at PV (it was a day later than Merion, and one degree cooler). I never said anything about making it to the hole, though ;)
interested to hear your thoughts re RHC #8
-
Terrific discussion.
Jeff wrote:
"This is the probably reason for the "demise of the carry bunker" in modern architecture relative to its use in the golden age. We have generally moved to the "inside"-"inside" bunkering to provide a "golfers choice" hole, with two equally valid options, based on the strengths of the player's game."
Question:
Is there a "golfer's choice" on a hole with an "inside-inside" bunkering scheme?
What choices do I have from the tee? Why wouldn't all golfers - good, bad or indifferent - take the outside route? If the green opens up from the bail-out area, why would I ever want to hit it near the "inside" fairway bunker?
Interesting point about the demise of the carry bunker. You are certainly right that you don't see new ones being built and the old ones tend to get the "committee" treatment.
Ross, for example, built two types of carry bunkers. There were his topshot bunkers at 100 yards (more or less) and his "strategic" fairway bunkering at 230 yards (more or less).
I assume you are talking about the "strategic" type bunker when you refer to "carry bunkers." If so, and at least in the case of Ross, these bunkers tended to be (though not always) at the sides of his fairways. They required carries only where the tee shot was missed to that side of the fairway. Thus, I never thought they were unfair or burdensome - even for really bad players. If you want to flirt with them and you mishit your shot, you pay the price. You may be screwed, but you screwed yourself.
These aren't cross bunkers. They don't obligate the player to carry them in order to progress down the fairway. They are at the edges of fairways to set up interesting strategic choices from the tee.
Nonetheless, the vast majority of these bunkers have been removed over the years. I don't think that is a good thing. I sense you may agree.
Is their removal is a further sign that architects (and greens committees) are under pressure from owners to dumb down courses to the level of play of the worst players? I think that is essentially what you are saying when you and other archies are troubled by the "I'm screwed" response to hazards on your courses.
Don't get me wrong, I fully appreciate the economic pressures you guys are under to build courses where everyone likes every shot they have all the time. Nobody likes unhappy clients, even if you think they are wrong to be unhappy.
Still, I hope architects and developers will resist those kinds of pressures.
In a broader sense, that is what troubles me about Chip's proposal for changes to No. 5 at MidO - that somehow we have to make sure that weaker players have strategic advantages too. So you re-angle the green to open it up for the short hitter.
While on the one hand that appeals to our apple pie sense of fairness to all, on the other hand the wonderful agony of making the right strategic choice from the tee has been diminished for the longer player. If you reduce the advantages of cutting off more of the lake, I will tend to take fewer risks. And with it you have lost the "juice" that makes No. 5 at MidO one of the great holes in the world.
The Dye "inside- inside" concept seems to me to achieve the same "fairness to weaker players" result by locating hazards so that no real strategy is involved to any player, weak or strong.
It seems to me we should resist a rule that says architects ought to balance strategic advantages between strong players and weak players. Architects should not be in the business of redistributing risk away form those that hit it poorly to those that hit it well. Well conceived, well executed shots should always be rewarded. Sometimes lavishly rewarded.
In some respects, Chip's "redistribution of risk" and Dye's "inside-inside" bunker strategy is why I dislike so many Fazio courses. He employs both concepts often.
Ironically, it also explains - at least in part - why he is so damned popular. But maybe that will be a topic for another thread.
Bob
-
All this talk about different strategic options is great, but it's making my head spin. I tried to explain it to my wife last night, but I sounded like a blithering idiot to her.
What all this makes me think about is the importance of laying a golf course onto a landscape. Assuming you have a half way decent piece of land, you guarantee that all these options are incorporated into the course.
We start to lose these fantastic strategies and options when we deconstruct and then reconstruct a site to fit nicely into our very narrow and simple paradigms.
-
I was wondering about how Tom Fazio's designs fit into this discussion and then I saw BCrosby's statement above:
"In some respects, Chip's "redistribution of risk" and Dye's "inside-inside" bunker strategy is why I dislike so many Fazio courses. He employs both concepts often."
I tend to think this is accurate from the few Fazio courses I've seen but I'm not sure I've seen enough Fazio courses to say so with conviction. Would you all agree/disagree/modify the foregoing comment? And please, this is NOT under any circumstances intended to drag this wonderful thread into Fazio-bashing. It's perhaps hopefully a probe into WHY Mr. Fazio's courses do not resonate with some in this discussion group.
All The Best,
-
This is one hell of a great thread and all I can say is:
YOU'RE WELCOME
for getting my sorry ass out of the way yesterday and allowing this free-flow of the titans to occur!
Very interesting indeed....
TH
-
Chipoat,
Yes, we did, but in all modesty, I think we both saved our best drives of the day for last.
Of course, before we get into a Hoganesque debate on what clubs we used for our second shots, Rich may have hit a 1-iron, but I can assure you (and the USGA museum) that I hit my trusty 2-iron.
I still left a 12-footer for par, but making that one brought a wonderfully memorable day to an end.
But, yes, Chip...I hear you about that significant carry. You notice we didn't mention what happened to Tom Paul's well-struck drive on the same hole. ;)
-
Bob Crosby
Need many hours to ponder what's been happening on this thread but I do have time for quick post.
I hadn't thought of my preferences as a redistribution of RISK since I assume that Old Thunder Buns' long ball option is to a similar landing area as Mr. Cashmere Insert's garden spot. Risk is, after all, a relative term. Equal size of landing area isn't always true, of course, but this IS an academic discussion and it IS true on the "offending" holes that I cited way back at the beginning.
I prefer to think of this concept as a redistribution of REWARD by attempting to make the degree of difficulty of the approach (or, on a par 5, the second shot and the approach) more equal (on a new design) or less unequal (on a re-design) from the 2 respective landing areas.
Keep goin' guys - I'll catch up this weekend.
-
Doug,
Let's not use this as an excuse to bash Fazio.
Bob Crosby,
I don't think anyone mentioned "design rules". I mentioned some theories and perhaps my preferences in using them at various times. If inside-inside is now rule one (and I don't think it is) then rule two is "break rule number one whenever you deem fit".
I think we all agree that strategic carry bunkers (not top shot, although these are out of favor, too) that encroach the fairway on an angle just short of the normal carry distance (whatever that is) are being used less than in the Golden Age.
Why in an inside inside would golfers take anything but the outside route? I proposed their use on long 4's into the wind, because the straight line distance may shorten the hole enough to make a difference. On shorter holes, safe play would be preferred.
Most of my rambling thoughts on what to do when weren't really aimed at dumbing down the course. I presumed that the target golfer of the design would be a low to medium handicap, serious competitor in his club or city events, would try to take advantage of every tool at his disposal to shoot the best score, and would like at least some of the holes to favor his game over someone with different strengths. Even a golfer as good as Trevino skipped the Masters, believing he had no chance to win on that course. Would you like to skip a club event because you couldn't do well? Or would you just change clubs?
-
Jeff,
Please reread my post.
Regards,
-
Doug,
I understood your moderate tone. I just think, that with this group, it is a slippery slope to start down. :)
-
Jeff,
I made the post with trepidation aforethought. What the hell, never mind... :)
All The Best,
-
Jeff -
I did not mean to imply you were proposing a "rule" of cga. I agree with you that if there is a rule in cga, the next rule should be to break it.
Nor did I want to get into Fazio bashing. We've covered that ground too often.
Nor did I mean to imply that you or any other architect is eager to to "dumb down" courses. My sense is, however, that architects these days feel a lot of pressure from developers and private clubs to make sure that even the worst golfer has a pleasant and, if possible, hazard-free round. My guess is that you don't like that pressure but that it seems to be a fact of life. I may be wrong.
Chip, I think, comes at the issue from a slightly different angle. He is concerned with the excessive benefits of length off the tee and how courses might be designed to give shorter hitters more of an even break. An argument based on concerns about basic fairness.
Both the economic pressures exerted by a developer and Chip's concerns with equity necessarily result in changes in the way modern architects design courses.
By and large, I think those developer pressures/equitable concerns result in courses that are less strategic and less interesting than they might otherwise be.
Viewed slightly differently, could it be that one of the reasons 29 of the top 30 courses in the most recent GD ranking are from the Golden Age is because the builders of those courses were not overly concerned about how tough those courses might be for the weaker player?
Yes, I think that is probably part of the answer.
I don't think that necessaritly implies that those older designers were smarter than the moderns. It was just a different mindset.
Bob
P.S. You make a good point about the "inside-inside" bunkering scheme on long par 4's with a bend in the fairway. Other than that scenario, however, it seems to me inside-inside ought to be used pretty rarely. Unfortunately, inside-inside appears to be the default bunker scheme in virtually all of the modern designs I see around here in Atlanta. I exclude that GCA favorite Cuscowilla, of course.
P.S.S. By the way, thanks for coming up with the "inside-inside" phrase. I've been trying to find a way to express the concept for years.
-
What this thread has done for me is to illustrate how many differing strategic concepts there are - some more common than others -- and it has probably only exposed the tip of the ice berg. I agree with BCrosby that the carry bunker sets up many interesting posssiblities and is sadly used less frequently today. Its demise can probably be traced to the Depression. And although many architects of that time wrote that they were a strategic waste or unnecessary or unfair, I think that criticism can be traced to economic reasons more than true strategic principals. But unfortunately that idea has carried through into the minds of some modern designers. There seems to be tight realtionship between strategy and playability/fairness in the mind of some modern golf architects - which doesn't always translate into interesting golf.
I would think not only should many differing strategic 'formulas' be used, some less 'fair' (or more penal) than others, but I also believe that an interesting design would also exhibit some purely penal qualities. And that one might also consider designing holes with little or no apparent strategy as a way to confuse - after heavy diet of thought the golfer may be perplexed as to exactly how to attack a hole that doesn't present a well defined strategy (perhaps a hole without hazards). If you mix-up the strategies and you include hole here or there that are either penal or non- or astrategic (I think I invented that word), I would think you could keep the golfer off ballance, always thinking and wondering.
-
What is the opposite of "Cape"? Well its a "Bay". Therefore holes which we thought were "Cape" holes but are not because the green is not out on a cape should be relabelled "Bay" holes. Obvious huuh!?!
I am curious as to why the 17th at NGLA is called Leven? The map of the course that is in Macdonald's book has the 17th named Peconic. When and why was this name changed? Someone referred to a Leven hole at Yale. What are the particular strategic characteristics of a Leven hole as I have never heard of it before. Presumably named after some feature at Leven Links I guess.
cheers
Neil
-
Neil
We did this discussion of the "Leven" hole a couple of months ago. If you can't find it in the "archives" let us know and we'll re-type our thoughts for you.
Cheers
Rich
-
Neil:
I remember the "leven" hole discussion as it related to NGLA's #17--there were even a few photos of the "leven" hole in Europe--whereever it is.
But you're right NGLA's #17 is not called "leven", it's called "Peconic" obviously because its entire backdrop is the Peconic Bay. There's even a hole at Shinnecock (contiguous to NGLA but to the inland side of it) that also has a hole named "Peconic" and for the same reason (can't remember at the moment which # it is) because you look out over the Peconic Bay from it--although from a greater distance.
NGLA's #17 is apparently called a "leven" hole though, probably for the same reason NGLA's #4 is called a "Redan", #7 is called a "Road" hole, #13 is an "Eden" and so on.
Some people are under the impression that these holes are actual copies of those European holes in a very recognizable sense. I really don't think that's so or at least it's not the point at all. They might have similar characteristics, feature placement whatever.
Even a designer like MacDonald who clearly pulled some "concepts" or even entire concepts of a hole from some of what he thought was excellent in Europe, he never really intended to make his holes "copies" of those holes or certainly not "exact copies" or replicas.
Some of these so-called "copies" are sometimes recognizable to their "concept" prototypes because of a distinctive feature or whatever and many times the basic "strategic concept" is very similar in a part of the hole or even an overall sense, like very similar basic strategies or parts of them. Again, I don't think they were ever really intended to be total replicas though.
I remember the photos of the original "leven" hole in Europe and it didn't look much or anything like NGLA's #17 although you could clearly see it had a number of "features" (whatever they might have been) that may have been placed in similar arrangements to the prototype. These so-called "copies" are often of similar lengths too but probably only because that's necessary to accomplish basic overall strategies similarities. I call holes that are non particularly recognizable to prototypes "concept copies".
Some will obviously argue with me on this distinction but that's a difference in interpretation, I guess. As an example of why I say this would be MacDonald's own interpretation of these kinds of holes, particularly the ones that have names like the "redan".
MacDonald mentioned that basically you find a piece of land that is a basic "table-top" affair and from that you may be able to construct a redan type hole! Or clearly his "road" hole was constructing a green with the same basic shape, orientation and maybe even dimensions of the original "road hole" and you have a "Road" hole. The body of the hole and it's length may have some basic similar characteristics but NGLA's #7 fits into its own natural environment and does not in any way attempt to manufacture it to look similar to TOC's #17. Piping's #8 is also call a "Road hole" but the hole was originally designed with another playability as it was much shorter and had "features" interchanged in various places with other kinds of "features" on the prototype.
Ran might disagree with me on all this since I think he feels these so-called famous hole "copies" should be exact in every way, but that's not something I agree with and I don't think that's what the designer was out to do.
-
Again, this really is a great thread involving many aspects of golf, strategic ramifications and principles etc! I read back through some of it and it occurs to me, though, that some of the discussion may be getting into the realm of both the unnreasonable or even the impossible, both from the perspective of the designer and also the golfer, in the sense that "the golfer" can be and is a very broad spectrum.
It seems as if Chip Oat has tried to define and identify what could be done design-wise to even out strategic risk/reward factors between a long hitter and a shorter one, and he's even given examples of a number of holes that can do that well somehow. Jeff Brauer, particularly, has tried to offer a number of actual design prinicples (or even design formulae) of how to do that--or even how much to do that! Jeff and some others have even mentioned how other architects do that--either well or not so well, in their opinions.
And this entire very good thread evolved out of "Bob" Jones's quote of how to widen the gap between a good shot and a bad shot. It might be necessary to estimate a bit better what "Bob" meant by that quote because it isn't particularly clear. But it might be necessary to do to carry on this discussion accurately, or even to determine if it's reasonable or even possible to do.
Did "Bob" mean by a "good shot", a well thoughtout and a well executed shot and by a "poor shot" a shot that was well thoughtout and executed poorly. Or by a "poor shot" maybe a well executed shot that was poorly thoughtout for some reason! And "Bob" didn't really say anything about "distance" vs "accuracy", or some comibination of the two, did he?
And even not knowing what "Bob" meant he really didn't say a thing either about the disparaty in the distances two equally accomplished players (score-wise) may be capable of hitting the ball, did he? So we should probaby define things more to carry on this discussion of the ramifications of strategy.
Because it's certainly true that golfers are unequal in a whole variety of things--in their ability to score, in their ability to make sensible risk/reward decisions and in their ability to hit the ball particular distances.
And there are plenty of things that golf offers that compensates for those things like various tees and also the handicap system.
If we want to talk about this subject in a rational and accurate way I would think we might analyze a golf course or even strategies and strategic principles or even strategic formulae in a true apples to apples way.
For that how about looking at the improbable win of Corey Pavin at the US Open at a course like Shinnecock against players that hit the ball much farther than he did? We can look at that in both a design sense of what the course presented him with its strategies and strategic principles and how he managed his own game in a risk/reward context.
Then we can look at the course from the opposite end of the capability spectrum, say a Greg Norman, and analyze what the course presented him with in the same strategic context and how he managed his game in a risk/reward context. And lastly, why a guy like Pavin who is clearly unequal to Norman physically won the tournament? What did the course give him that allowed him to do this and how did he use it! And the same at the opposite end of the distance spectrum with Norman!
Then we can look at and analyze strategic ramifications, principles, formulae and in the actual design of a golf course in a much more accuate way to encorporate the entire spectrum of golfers capabilities both physically and mentally--particularly when competing at equal distance!
I'm also a little perplexed by Tom Doak's remark, quoted by Jeff Brauer, about how a very good golfer is "too conservative" and how a poor golfer is "too aggressive". And also by B Crosby's remarks about possible ways to equal things out in a design context between a good golfer and a poor golfer. What does Bob mean exactly by "good" and "poor" golfers?
But it seems to me Tom Doak, a clearly execellent designer, should have said a very good golfer "is" conservative and a poor golfer "is" aggresive. That would then be an observable fact and probably a very true one about why a very good golfer is good and a poor one is poor.
But if Tom is saying both are "too much" one way or the other it would seem that Tom thinks it should not be that way and he plans to do something about it in a design context! And if that's what Tom does mean maybe he would be the one to answer this overall question in this thread best. Otherwise, it seems to me to be a very improbable question to answer, maybe even impossible!
Tom might have gotten that sentiment from Pete Dye who clearly may be on a career campaign to torture the very good golfer--but that's another subject altogether and far from how to even things out in a risk/reward design context when you factor in the disparates in the distances golfers hit the ball.
-
TEPaul,
I have been thinking over your last response for a couple of days. I post this Sunday morning because we proomised to keep the thread alive for when some return from a busy weekend!
First, I assumed Jones was commenting on two relatively equal tee shots by good players, with one planned and played thoughtfully to the better position, rather than at random. As to why Pavin beat stronger players, I assume that he both found some advantageous places to play the ball, and that Shinnecock also equally rewarded his short game prowess over stronger players. Smallish greens with tricky surrounds are, I think, one of the best tools to reward accuracy and cunning over brute strength.
As to Bob Crosby wondering why the Golden Age courses dominate the rankings, I am not sure it has much to do with the original "strategic design" as those bunkers are not in play anymore. They are hard courses, almost solely because of trees narrowing the fairway, sloping greens at high speeds, and now too short doglegs that force players to work the ball. I am thinking of Winged Foot as I write this......
Your first paragraph sums up the argument pretty well for non tournament course design. It is really impossible to cover every possible golfer these days, even with multiple tees, since the disparity is so wide.
And, as in the prevailing wind discussion, the designer must make some assumptions that, if he is lucky, will be present more than half the time (with the wind) and maybe 2% of the time with individual golfers. I often wonder how many tee shots actually end up within a yard of the theroetical "dog leg" point we put on our drawings and stake in the field. I know its not many!
Your post goes on to wonder about many things in a general way, and you are correct - they may be unanswerable. But designers (at least the good ones) spend considerable time on airplanes and alone in hotel rooms, and their thoughts, I assume, turn to all things design related. At some point, we have to decide what we base our design principals on and make a firm decision each time we design a hole or course. We need to make a clearly defined decision like Chipoats, who knows he would design a course that did not overly reward the long hitter, for example.
That is perhaps a bold statement, and one not many architects would make that specifically. But am I the only guy in the world, who, after reading a statement like Tom Doak's quote of Crenshaw, "I studied the left to right wind and set the green up for a fade" (approximate quote from above, I can't find it) who wants the architect to go on and say "by canting the axis of the green to the right." In other words, be specific?
I have read all the books, and some of the best quotes come from Thomas. Why does he extend fairway beyond the greens on long par 4's? Because a 3 wood that hits the green and goes long is a better shot than one that comes up short and shouldn't have a tougher recovery. I like that kind of specificity. That is why I like this thread so much, so far.
I suppose that other architects are better at marketing than I, and always make it sound as if there design ideas come from sitting at the right hand of God (insert appropriate number of lightning bolts striking Jeff here). But, I like to be specific. And of all places, I would think a golf architecture discussion group would encourage specifics!
When I posted some of my specific thoughts on some uses of strategy here, I have to say, I stewed in my own juices a bit when you labeled them as "even some design formulae", as that has some real negative connotations. >:( Really though, pre thinking your basic philosphy reduces the possible options from infinity to about one million or so when surveying the land before designing a golf hole! It also helps avoid an unthinkingly unplayable hole later! You have referred to "blank canvass" thinking before, but I think that is acheived with a little canvass preparation in advance!
Anyway, this is the type of thread I enjoy. As Tom MacWood says, its always enlightening to see how many different opinions there are on a relatively narrow subject. I suppose if we debate more - or even all - the narrow subjects in golf design we would be better able to come up with the big picture than looking at the big picture itself! :)
Sorry to ramble, and I will be more specific next time.....if there is a next time. I'm off to chuch to ask for forgiveness on that "right hand of God remark". It appears sunny, but I see one dark cloud hanging ominously at the end of the block!
-
JeffB:
That was a wonderful post of yours! The reason, in my opinion, because you are trying to go from general and sometimes vague architectural principles (if one can even say principles) into the more specific applications of those principles and what it takes to apply them and/or create good and interesting strategies and so forth.
That's the direction I love to see these threads go in too because then we all can see how principles are actually envisioned, conceptualized, applied and ultimately function for golf!
Your second paragraph, by the way, says a ton not about specifics but particularly some of the valid ways of looking at the generalities of this entire subject. And that too is good and necessary!
I couldn't agree with you more about the quote from Doak about Crenshaw and how to add all the little design details into a hole on something like a prevailing "fading" wind and the meaning of the slope of the green and anything else that creates interesting and enjoyable strategic ramifications even if they sometimes become complex or even apparently contrary!!
I'm sorry about my mention of these things as sometimes "formulaic"! That's certainly not directed at you, just a general remark. That's something, however, I think about often, and I know you do too! The only reason I say that is I don't believe in standardizing these principles and strategies to such an extent that they ever do become "formulaic".
Some of the great architects and architectural writers that we've all studied and read often speak about these things in the theory! Others like Thomas, Tillinghast, Hunter, Ross to a degree, MacKenzie and certainly Doak talk about it both in theory and also in actual practice--and that's great--that's what we ultimately are looking for to understand this subject.
But the best of them do mention for every design principle or strategic application (or even apparent formula) that the occassional breaking of them can sometimes work as well or better!
The crux of all this, however, has to be--I'm now certain--that an architect cannot do this indiscrimately or for no real purpose!! It all has to make sense in the overall! And that overall may not be easy to define sometimes but may not really be more than how it all affects a player's mind in some way--any player of any ability and might just get even farther down to how the ball flies and bounces and from where, in the end. And do those two things somehow create everlasting fascination and enjoyment (even if mysterious or improbable or seemingly contradictory) or do they create negative criticism and everlasting frustration for some reason? Or, of course, even boredom?
This is sort of the bottom line to me! But you're right, how does one get to that point without wrecking things?
This is why I love Coore's remark that creating good or great holes is like arranging a symphony--there are all these "notes" to use (the "notes" are akin to the myriad of golf's architectural "features"-bunkers, slope, contour, trees, angles, etc, on and on) and it's all in how you arrange them!! He did go on to say, however, that if a "note" ("feature") is seriously out of place (or unworthy of use in the arrangement) the enitire symphony (hole, strategy, whatever) can be discordant or come crashing down!!
This is what it's all about to me. And I have studied your booklet you kindly gave me and all the "arrangements" you've thought through and listed and use! I need to study them again and more closely because it is a subject that I think needs to be constantly analyzed to avoid the "formulaic". But again I'm not saying that about you, just generally.
As to specifics which you and I want to get to and discuss on here. You mentioned the slope of that green in the Crenshaw "fading" hole with the prevailing wind and if it was a long hole how about mentioning some fairway or recoverable chipping area behind the green since a good or over-good 3 wood should be dealt with in a different way in design than an approach that was not so well hit and did not reach the green. Obviously you're saying give him something less testy behind the green than in front of it! I agree that's the correct way for a designer to think! So a more recoverable chipping area in the rear would be one thing--one feature--one "note"!
But there are some many other "notes" that could be interchanged with that "commensurately recoverable" chipping area back there that could achieve the same basic effect but maybe with differing degress of gray! How about a green-space "kick-up" back there, particuarly if the natural topography allowed it or called for it! How about something partial in that regard back there that could combine both some accuracy requirments with that over-good 3 wood, like a partial "kick-up" rear right with a subtle ridge running along the green front to back from mid-left to rear left taking that shot away to the left behind the green if it was not a particularly accurate shot, albeit solidly hit? There are tons of subtle arrangements to use and combine to accomplish the same basic effect but to also accomplish variety and to avoid the "formulaic".
Or how about the right to left sloping fairway on a left dogleg with the green oriented to the right of the hole and contoured to receive a shot coming right to left (the expected left direction of a shot off a basic hooking/hanging lie)? That's sound principle and sound strategic application depending on what the hole is all about, its length, par, whatever.
But how about mixing that up and creating a green very much oriented to the left of the hole and maybe with very much a fading oriented green off a hooking hanging lie? And maybe even putting no run-up on the hole at all depending on what it is (short par 4 or a par 5 of shortish length or some other combination)? That would seem a bit counter to basic architectural principle, wouldn't it? Maybe so but Augusta's #13 is reknowned and respected despite that apparently contrary strategic application?
Or maybe a hole like Rustic Canyon's #12 with a enormous wide fairway with scarely an architectural feature of any kind on it but a green over to the left that's almost driveable? Most golfers would probably look at the drive as boring or poor design until hopefully they understand that the little open green itself contains all the strategic meaning in and of itself--that that's all there is but a golfer has to understand that even a great drive that has tons of unfettered and unpenal possibilities on that fairway will not work well at all when approaching the hole without considering where the pin is and where the drive should have been? That's basically removing architecture and actually removing strategic indication on a particular shot for maximum ultimate effect. Tom MacWood mentioned this interesting strategic application as astrategic!
Or even Rustic's next hole, an enormously wide and long par 5 that the golfer can play many different ways to reach the approach to the green which all revolves around one small incredibly strategic bunker, although at first it may appear mundane! So it matters little how you get there but when you do get there you'd better be ready. That's the best example of Behr's idea about a central liability that is not immediate but somewhere in the future and that future liability is the sum and substance of what you have to prepare for--almost the entire strategy of the hole--but a very meaningful one.
And on and on--so many possibility to consider-but always considering that the line is fine that even one design mistake can upset the whole symphony!
But wonderful post of yours!
-
TEPaul,
Glad I didn't offend too much by using your post as an example of general vs. specific. The "stew in my own juices" phrase was a favorite of my mother's but I really never got beyond the lowest setting of simmer! Anyway, glad to have dodged the lightning bolts :o and live to post another day.
Ben Crenshaw likens design to a symphony. Maybe it's my personality, but I liken it to comedy in a couple of ways. Comedians build their routines with individual jokes or bits, and tie them together for an entire show. Several are reptetions of a theme, to tie it all together thematically, but also work as individual jokes.
I think you touch on what I call the "substitution theory" of golf design. One of the reasons a joke is funny is that you set up a very normal situation, and at the end come in with a surprize twist. (So, I was sittting in this bar the other day.....) Golf design can work that way, too. Both in the building a symphony (or comedy routine) out of individual parts, and by recognizing principals of classic golf holes, without having to actually replicate them exactly, when you realize you can substitute other, natural features to get the same effect. At least, since I like joking around, I like to believe that the comedic process of substition translates into a similarly creative design process - testing out various ideas until ??? you find one that fits best.
I think we all, to one degree or another, copy certain aspects of classic holes in design. I believe some tour pro/designers try to hard to copy some famous hole they played well. Most designers adapt classic elements to their site. For instance, your example of substituting a kick back slope (I call it a mini punch bowl) rather than a flat fairway chipping area would acheive the same intended result - encouraging aggressive play and penalizing that miss equal or less than average play - If that is what the topography offered. That was just one of the good examples you offered up for great strategic play.
Philosophically, I am not as sure about your proposal to build a fade green for a shot that will almost surely come from a hook lie. To me, its different building a target that encourages failure and building a target that encourages sucess - but punishes different failures differently. In other words, I believe a target should be sized, oriented, and contoured to hold the most likely shot - and if you follow chipoat's theory, perhaps the two most likely shots!
If those elements make a fair (ie, reasonably attainable) target, then almost anything in the way of hazards would be fair game. You could eliminate the run up option on shorter holes, as you suggest, or provide severe hazards.
However, if the green is not attainable by virtue of its internal design - and in many cases, like the Redan, the external design of its approach and surrounds) then even a total abscence of hazards would not make it fair. Does that make any sense?
Basically, I would tend to build that green to accept the logical hook, figuring it would take almost superhuman effort for most of us who aren't Tiger to overcome the forces of physics and hit the fade. On the other hand, if the hole is short, and a good option exists to play to the correct spot of the fairway, perhaps one that is a bit more level, with a little planning and thought, I would not mind substantial hazards. In that case, I I would try to punish the over hooked shot more to emphasize the importance of getting to a non hook lie.
Of course, as you say, that is the theory I would use to start, but the land doesn't always suggest the "perfect" theoretical solution. You have always got to be flexible!
-
Jeff Brauer, Tom Paul, Dan Kelly, Rich Goodale:
Thanks for keeping the thread going although what could I possibly add to your high-level ruminations of the last 3 days?
Here goes.
Rich:
I'l bet this is the hardest hole to design, but I really do like to avoid "taking the driver out of the hands" of Old Thunder Buns and making the bunted 1 iron the higher percentage tee shot from a pure risk perspective. To my mind, equal size landing areas for both options off the tee are the ideal. However, my sense is that an archirect would have to make a couple of return trips (at the least), and have a "flexible" budget, to get that kind of subtle playability in place. Perhaps that's why Pinehurst and pre-war NGLA became so marvelous - their architects had ongoing carteblanche to tweak/upgrade/evolve/amend, etc. I'm told Dye had the same free hand at Crooked Stick for years.
Also Jeff Brauer's "you're screwed" equates to "your relative disadvantage as a short hitter is further accentuated because this hole rewards the longer hitter in several different ways". I'd like to be with you for your next round at Merion as I think Hugh Wilson did a good job of minimizing that issue.
Dan Kelly
I can think of a number of situations where the Position A is less risky to reach than Position B. The one's I've already mentioned in this thread are:
Merion #1: fairway gets wider past the bunkers that the long hitter can now carry.
Merion #10: same - even more so.
National #18: fairway is much wider if you can carry the left hand bunker off the tee. In the beginning, nobody could do it.
Since titantium and Pro V1's, I'm one of the few who can't.
National #17: fairway is wider the further you can carry it over the left grunch.
None of these holes were built this way, BTW.
Jeff Brauer
1) Everybody but me gets what Dye and you mean about inside-inside and inside-outside. If you have time, I could use a little more explanation.
2) I think Paul Pro is often times just trying to make the top 125 on the money list - thar's gold in them thar hills! Do you think Paul Pro was as percentage-oriented in the days when you had to win once a year to make the top 60 and keep your card? Also, Andy Amateur has been a poor thinker all his golfing days - that's one reason he never gets any better. After all, playing within yourself is boring!
3) I've always liked the notion that "over is safe" on long-ish holes - particularly if there's trouble in front AND/OR if the green is angled such that the most direct approach is generally from the longer route. I just won't let that concept go, will I? Regardless, why penalize the aggressive shot when the club being used is not the easiest to hit in the first place?
3a) Having said that, I'll semi-contradict myself and say that a "great" finishing hole might be designed such that chasing a back pin position for birdie is seriously gutsy and could be disastrous.
3b) I must say that "trouble everywhere" on short approaches and short/medium par 3's has lots of appeal. You don't have to go to Dave Pelz to know how far you hit your short irons, after all.
Anybody:
Here's a couple of other candidates for re-angled greens to make the long hitter think on the tee a bit and eliminate a significant "design advantage".
Merion #'s 1 and 10, Garden City #16, Pebble #3 (although the angle from the "bail out" drive to the right is so wonderfully tough I might let that one slide) and Shinnecock #1.
On the flip side, I think Pine Valley #15, the "original mortal's intent" of NGLA #18 (from the right side off the tee) and Pebble #18 demand the purest "strategic" 2nd shots towards trouble I know to set up the approach angle into the green. Merion #2 belongs in this group, too as does NGLA #7 and Pebble #14, I think. Anybody else have good examples of par 5's like that (might have been a Valley Club example earlier in the thread)? They strike me as very hard to visualize and construct on a raw piece of land.
Finally, the green angle on #18 at NGLA really does make for a fabulous strategic par 5 as the best angle for the approach is from as close to the right precipice as possible. If they could figure out a way to defend the long/left tee ball better, I'm sure even MacDonald and Raynor would appreciate the way their original strategy for the hole was preserved.
Thanks for keeping the thread going, guys - hope everybody had a good weekend.
CO
-
JeffB:
With my example of a design that mixes things up like a fading oriented green with an approach that's primarily off a hooking lie I wasn't being theoretical at all! I was citing as an example of that ANGC's #13 that does exactly that and certainly has become famous, respected and stood the test of time.
Frankly, in my mind, that very much does fit into Chip Oat's ideas about how to counteract in interesting ways the differences in distance (vs accuracy) and in a balancing of risk/reward factors even with distance disparities between players of otherwise comparable ability (score-wise)!
Think about it, that kind of thing just factors in another interesting wrinkle for a long player who may under more normal circumstances be able to hit the ball the given distance there! This way he has to struggle with the added risk/reward factor of having to shape something out of the ordinary or out of his normal comfort zone!
This to me may not make the long player back off all the time but it surely would more often than under more normal design circumstances and even if he does go for it there is more for him to struggle with--so he's more likely to make a mistake with all that! Of course if he can't handle all that risk/reward factoring he will be laying up about where the shorter player most likely will be.
A designer can't do everything but just doing something like that is an awful lot it balancing out the disparities of distance capability!
I like your analogy of a comedian putting together an act in relation to Coore's analogy of a composer putting together a symphony! But it's about the same difference--both are putting together something good with bits and pieces for enjoyment and entertainment!
Actually it's always interested me just how seriously really good comedians take their art!
-
Chip:
Some interesting examples, particularly NGLA's #18. I can think of a couple of things that could defend the hole in the way I think you mean and sort of balance things out a bit between the longman and the shortman.
The first one you may not agree with at all and is sort of subliminal (but I believe has worked well on other holes like this). That would be to simply call #18 a par 4! What that accomplishes is the shortman who has half a brain is far more likely to play the hole as a par 5 anyway, understanding the realities of his distance limitations! Therefore his strategy is far less risky all the way along! The longman, on the other hand, in many cases (most I believe) has his hand forced far more by the psychology of par! Therefore he may be less measured about the real risk/reward variables of that hole!
The other way to balance things out on a hole exactly like that one--actually that one (and this is an example only, I'm not recommeding this for NGLA) would be to put something up in that large fairway area over the left bunker (probably near the middle) that is rather small but highly psychological! This would factor into the longman's thinking as just another worry if he happened to hit it too good, for instance! This could be something like a smallish bunker of moderate penality the chances of getting in would not be real great! It would need to be just enough to get in the longman's head everytime though!
But something like that would be of no consequence at all to the shortman as he could never reach it from the tee and he would have it under the top of his trajectory on his second shot!
I actually have a hole that very much speaks to what you're saying here and it's extremely interesting in that it has evolved from what you like to see to what you don't like to see!
And it isn't just any old hole! It happens to be one of Donald Ross's very favorite short par 4s he ever built! He certainly mentioned it enough! It's the short little dogleg left or elbow hole #15 at Gulfstream G.C.
It is now much like Pine Valley's #12 as the farther you hit the tee ball (with not much risk) the better angle you have into the gut of the green--into its long front to back orientation! Its green is oriented in the same way off the fairway and basic hole direction as PVGC's #12. And the shortman has to carry over a pond fronting the green. And the short man has a wide but very shallow target! The best play for either short or longman from the tee is to hug the left side as much as possible despite a "natural" (unmaintained) bunker all along the left!
So this is the way the hole is and the kind of set-up you really don't like. But the thing that really blew my mind is back in the late 1950s Dick Wilson came in and turned the orientation of this green from just as you do like it to just as you don't like it!
The way Ross designed the hole was to have the length of the green oriented to the short left (shortman risking only accuracy) and the shallow angle to the longman who hit it way down the fairway!
I've always liked the hole the way it is now, but I do agree with you and I think I might like it better the way it used to be! And the thing that blows my mind is the club turned Donald Ross's strategy upside down on one of his favorite short par 4s!
-
Tom:
I like option 2 for #18 at NGLA but I'll let YOU be the one to suggest it to the powers-that be! It is an excellent idea, though. I was thinking less creatively in terms of a 2nd and 3rd bunker just past the big one you can see - thereby making the first primary hazard "uncarryable" without creating some horrid looking monster pit.
Sounds like your Gulfstream example used to be what I'd like #16 at Garden City to become. Sounds like Dick Wilson agrees with Shivas - let the mighty rule!
Chip
-
shivas,
Are you Matt Ward's brother? ???
-
shivas;
First, thanks for taking my good-natured ribbing in the fun spirit it is intended on your thread.
And, I enjoy having this debate.
What I don't understand is your contention that the ability to apply major force to a golf ball somehow translates into that person being a better golfer...I just don't accept that premise.
I can drive the ball a bit past Tom Paul for instance (sorry, Tom), but he is a far superior player to me in almost every other respect. I know other guys who can blast it by me who I'll beat 9 out of 10 times.
Still, although I think I disagree with the premise on which you base your questions, I will try to answer each.
Should the architect "dumb down" the course so that reverse discrimination takes place between the man who hits it "with force" and those who hit it "with limp wrists" (sorry, couldn't resist)?
Nope, I think the architect should strive to make the hole play interestingly, and challenging for both men. Perhaps if you define some of the ways in which you think modern architects are keeping the shorter hitting man in the game, I might understand what you are trying to get at. Are you telling me that if you drive the ball 300 yards and your competitor hits it about 220, and you both play from the back tees, that he is somehow being compensated by the architect along the way? Are you saying that you don't already gain a HUGE advantage by virtue of your length over him?
Should the architect give a clear strategic advantage to the expert ballstriker, (not distance based). Well, once again you are mixing length with ballstriking ability, but I think architects do this quite often, and quite appropriately so. Augusta, pre-2001 is a good example of this, where the man who can carry to the deep left side of the 10th gets another 50 yards or so of roll, while the fella who can't make that carry sits back up on the hill. However, I also like to see holes like the 6th at Hawk Pointe that i cited earlier where the guy who thoughtlessly blasts away often finds himself in a worse position (albeit much closer to the green) than the thoughtful player who lays back to full-club range for the approach. To me, variety that encourages players of all distances to THINK is what good design should be about.
-
shivas,
I agree. I think every course needs a "couple" of holes where a long drive gives a strategic advantage beyond just length. I'm all in favor of variety, and you provided some good examples.
I've provided links to them below;
http://www.destinationkohler.com/bwr/rivercourse12.html
http://www.destinationkohler.com/bwr/rivercourse11.html
We're getting closer here, shivas, but what exactly is wrong with that "insane" little pot bunker? I think it's perfect!
-
I just had to chime in since the discussion has turned to the subject of distance.
As someone who hits the ball a decent ways off the tee ( ;D )I'm always interested in seeing how architects today deal with the subject of power.
Too many designs deal with power by narrowing in the landing zones to such an extent that you have for all intents and purposes "taken the driver out of one's hands" -- especially the longer hitters. To have this happen on maybe one or two holes is fine, but when it becomes the standard feature of a course you have a problem of fairness and understanding of where power falls in the game. This would be no different than having forced carries of 240 yards or more with water everywhere. Clearly, the shorter hitter would cry foul because there are no other options except to land in Davey Jones locker.
Mike, there are quite a few contributors to GCA who wax on about the merits of 6,100 yard courses because, let's be honest, they don't have the wherewithal to handle longer courses that call for dextertity with long irons or even wood approaches -- ditto, hitting the driver with some pop on it. I'm not advocating completely what Shivas is arguing for, but distance is no less a part of the game than accuracy. I see them as equals -- I'm sure others weigh the balance towards the accuracy side -- so be it.
Mike -- you're example of the 6th at Hawk Pointe is a good one. I've driven the green from the tips on a coupe of occasions, but unless one can get it to the green or the fringe you are absolutely dead on target with your analysis. It's a well crafted hole -- public golf needs more of these types of holes. I also would like to mention the 18th at Hawk Pointe -- a classic power hole. Played from the absolute tips the strong player can take the tee shot directly at the farthest corner on line with the tree and leave himself a relatively short easy pitch. The weaker player must stay left or becomes wet.
Like you Mike, I favor courses that call for a combination of both elements. But, I do agree with Shivas, too much whining is done by those who can't hit the ball far. I'm amused that Palmer and Nicklaus complain about how far the ball goes today, but 30 years ago when they were blowing tee shots way past competitors the game was just fine. Hello -- Anyone see a bit of inconsistency in the arguments!
I credit today's modern designers such as Doak -- i.e. the short 16th (338 yards) at Pac Dunes is another great example in testing the skills of all types of players when you give enough room to "tempt" the longer hitter to pull out the driver.
When I'm playing I play for score -- not for ego on club selection. If I don't sense some sort of gain from hitting the driver I'll automatically club down to a 3-wood or 1-iron to get the ball in play.
Balance is part of the game and modern designers in many cases / courses I have seen do try to fathom a remedy that keeps the game in "balance" even when different players have varying ways in playing the game. The bottom line -- to score well you must have a complete package in order to max out your opportunities -- long hitters know full well the woods are full of balls they have hit. At the same time those are "bunters" should try to understand that power is not just about some big lug firing away and therefore cease whining about al the "unfair" advantages long hitters have. On well designed courses the balancing elements are there for both styles. ;)
-
Mike:
FYI -- Shivas is not my brother! ;D
Although I do enjoy his take on things ...
-
shivas,
But do you know it's there?
You could always bail right, correct? You do have options, you know. ;D
-
Shivas,
If you think that pot bunker at Blackwolf is insane? You'd be insane after playing The Old Course for the first time ( or maybe every time :) ). I used to feel like you do--what, a bunker in the middle of the fairway, and blind at that? ??? Sorry, I'm over that phase. Now things like that are just a part of strategic golf--when used in moderation, of course.
And remember, "They're only blind once, laddie..."
--Tommie Armour
All The Best,
-
shivas,
You just provided 7 reasons I hadn't even thought of when I said that bunker's location is "perfect". Thanks! ;)
-
Matt:
I've been reading the last couples of posts on this thread with interest and in your 5:01pm post of today you say that taking the driver out of a long hitters hands is really an issue of fairness no different than 240yd carries everywhere so that the short hitter has no option but to land in Davy Jones's locker!
Surely you can't be serious? A short hitter has no chance at all but a long hitter has 14 clubs and can choose to use any number of them to resolve his problem! That's an issue of fairness akin to the short hitter's problem?
That ain't even close Matt!
-
I was doing a little research on something and I came across this thread from 10 YEARS AGO! It is a compelling discussion of strategy in golf course design (including, but not limited to, discussion of Cape and Leven holes) with erudite commentary from many of the scions of GCA.com (a number now gone from the site*). I commend it to the group both for the content and the tone of the discussion.
*There is mention of Tom Paul approaching the lofty number of 500 posts....
-
Doug: A great find !
How can we take comments out of the past and apply them to current conversations ? It takes too much time to research some great thoughts and expressions on here, and use them to evaluate what time and change has contributed to thought.
Willie