Bad Options? Good Architecture?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The strategy thread, where we always talk about options makes me think of another hypothetical example of a hole.

Imagine a 380 yard straight away par 4, just beyond driving limits, for now, for most!  The green is an elevated, tiny fortress green, requiring high spin to hold.

The tee shot offers three options -

Play a power drive to 350 yards, to level areas just short of the green, but with half a lob wedge that can't give you full spin.

Play a full drive to 240-300 yards, leaving a full wedge for maximum spin.  However, all fairway and rough areas in this range have great contour, assuring a funky lie which could cause the shot to "squirt".

Play a layup to 230 or less, leaving 150 yards or more, a "too long" mid iron approach for the tiny green, but providing a level lie.

As you can see, none of these options leaves an ideal shot to the green.  Is architecture that leaves no ideal approach shots good or bad?

Would adding a small patch of level fairway in the 240-300 range, allowing a player of great accuracy a chance at a short iron from a level lie in the preferred landing zone approach distance be required to make this a better hole?

Or should this type of hole never be built, period?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
If the green is nearly impossible to hit and hold from 150+ then it doesn't sound too practical.
I like the idea of more difficult terrain the closer one gets, especially in light of the straight away nature of the hole.
More level terrain short of the green attracts the bombers and works for  shorter hitters who cannot reach in two.  


 

[texsport]

Sounds like an interesting hole.

How about making the fairway pretty wide to almost guarantee everone hits it and have the flat fairway area stop at 270 yards. The tee shot is all about distance control instead of accuracy and the hole is a short iron and putting test.

Make the hole play down wind.

This encourages those in love with distance to hit driver off the tee.

 Past 270 yards off the tee, dig out a hollow creating downhill/uphill  lies and shots from below the level of the green plus increased difficulty with distance perception, shot trajectory and distance control on all approaches.

These features would force very accurate distance control off the tee for a flat lie and exact clubbing to the green.

Oh, and create a fairway length mowed chipping area beyond the green like you did at the 8th on The Quarry.

Is this too tough a hole?

John Kendall

[ForkaB]

Jeff

I think that is an interesting hole.  You might think of adding some sort of high skill option to allow the person who attempts and succeeds in hitting a "power drive" a better than average chance of hitting his 2nd close.  Maybe some sort of ground game option.

Also, if you have that funky bit in the 240-300 range, this is going to randomize the results from the "power drive" option as balls landing there from the tee will be kicked in various directions.  Unless your flat zone there is very wide, you might negate some of your intent.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jeff,
If the green is as difficult to hit and hold from 150 and out as it seems, then won't play be excessively slow?  The better golfers will be waiting for the lesser ones to get on the green so they can whale away for option 1, while the lessers are trying to find a way on.  As constituted, should this hole be only in the interior of a side (not one of the first three holes, for instance) and would it be a better private course hole?

[Michael Dugger]

Jeff,

I think it sounds fine.  Why does every hole have to be "fair" or "easy"?

I don't see a problem getting a seven iron to stop on a dime, I really don't.  

The element of chance always exists.  Sometimes a little luck is required to get a birdie.

Maybe compensate for the difficulty or "demanding" second shot by making sure that the ensuing or previous hole are perhaps a little more managable.

I mean are you talking about a green like Pebble #7 or PV#10?  That small?  

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Yes, diminishing the return and value of length by gradually increasing the fairway contour seems a better way to go to me, as it adds a more multi dimensional tee shot.....

John,

See above.  If we allow a drive to right at 270, then distance control would be enhanced, but I like the gradual diminishing or returns on length, not an all or nothing starting point.  In reality, would a 110 yard shot be enough of an advantage over a 120 yard shot?  It would be easy to lay up well short, although the downwind scenario would carry a slightly "shaved to close" tee shot into the controured area.

Yes, being downwind would certainly also make the temptation to go for the shorter approach more tempting, given the reduced backspin.  And I considered adding fairway well wide and behind the green, in anticipation of the day a few years from now when driving over the green will be an option! I also said "Fotrress green" anticipating  lack of vision as you near the green.  Good ideas both....

Rich,

Wide fairways?  Always!

Is it "fair" to have the high skill option, i.e. a level pad in the drive zone at something just less than full drive?  I suppose at, say 250 yards, its only going to be "perfect distance" for a small % of golfers to just hit a full tee shot.....

AG,

At 380, with a fortress green, I am hoping hypothetically that no one will drive the hole.  Perhaps I am in fantasy land again.....Yes, it is impractical on any course where speed of play is the main design goal, and any short hole with potential to slow down play is best used later in each nine.....

Thanks for the responses.  I have posted hypotheticals before, and gotten very few......but I enjoy that kind of theory discussion way more than reviewing courses, etc.

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

The hole you describe would play something like the original 10th at ANGC. A short par 4. No a fortress green. It was tucked tightly behind and below the currrent fairway bunker. But the playing strategies were very similar.

Short hitters could see the top of the pin, but had to carry the bunker and stop a longer approach to a runaway green. A tough shot. Bombers going straight at the green were left with a totally (I think) blind chip shot over the same bunker.

Neither were terribly attractive choices.

MacK left a narrow shelf at about 230 on the right side of the fairway (the high, hard to reach side).  It provided a flatter lie and a view of the putting surface. But it was a hard place to find.

(With the current Maxwell green, that right-side shelf is no longer relevant.)

Bob

   

[Dan Kelly]

Is architecture that leaves no ideal approach shots good or bad?

Seems to me it could be either good or bad.

This hole sounds good.

Only thing I'd recommend (on this hole; on virtually every hole): some sort of ground-game approach option, to make the hole playable for most women and kids and high-handicappers.

The low-handicappers will never avail themselves of that option, anyway.

[CjM111]

Jeff....what about creating the smallish green with a strong slope from back to front to provide a better opportunity to hold the shot.  If you really wanted to create an interesting effect that might make for increasing the difficulty, create a false front on the green much like nine at Augusta, that will bring shots played too short back into the fairway.

Just another frustrated design guy.

Regards,

[Andy Hodson]

Jeff

This, to me, sounds like a weak hole. Not a terrible hole; just weak. For this reason: not because it is unfair; but because there seems to be no one option better than the other. The architecturally intelligent, skilled, golfer stands on the tee and might say "So what? Doesn't matter where I hit it. There is no advantage." Kinda like taking a multiple choice test where there is no one right answer. Just a bunch of choices that aren't wrong, just not necessarily right.

[Steve_Lovett]

Jeff,

This is interesting - and I think is more about "preference" than "strategy".  Is diminishing returns on length a good thing?  Isn't length often the result of a well struck/executed shot?  I'm not talking about wild length, but well-played length...

In this case, I don't think 90% of golfers will "get" the strategy.  Left/Right strategy is easier understood - the "where do I want to hit it, and at what potential risk or reward?" option.  

This hole seems to provide options which play into shot preferences, not necessarily strategy.  Just as one may hit a 90 yard wedge sky-high, another may hit a knockdown wedge and achieve the same end result.  Neither (all things being equal) is a function of strategy, but rather a function of a players preference.

Would the strategic options be any different if it wasn't a "fortress green"?

[Doug Siebert]

Andy,

Just because all the options look the same to you, doesn't mean they do for others.  I like that kind of hole where you don't really see one good way to go and you just have to decide your strategy based on how your swing is that day, what the conditions are like, etc.

A weak hole to me is one where there is one and only one true way to play it, so you play it the same way every time.  Talk about boring!

I say go for it, Jeff.  I say the fuzzier you can make the decision making process from the tee, the better.  And there's no reason people should feel they 'deserve' a birdie attempt as a reward for two good shots on a 380 yard hole (or on any hole)  The short par 4 where you can only birdie it with some luck so you really need to play it for par/avoiding bogey is the kind of thing that messes with some golfer's minds.

[texsport]

Andy
      How about playing the hole into the wind and make the fairway either very narrow at 260 yards, or, place a cross bunker requiring a 260 carry into the wind in play?

John Kendall

Jeff

This, to me, sounds like a weak hole. Not a terrible hole; just weak. For this reason: not because it is unfair; but because there seems to be no one option better than the other. The architecturally intelligent, skilled, golfer stands on the tee and might say "So what? Doesn't matter where I hit it. There is no advantage." Kinda like taking a multiple choice test where there is no one right answer. Just a bunch of choices that aren't wrong, just not necessarily right.