18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch (by Matt Ward)

[Doug Siebert]

I'm with Shivas on this business of "it ain't risk/reward" if there's equal risk either way whether you chase the reward or not.  My idea of risk/reward is that if you choose to endure additional risk, you reap additional reward.  This doesn't look like risk/reward to me, because I see no reason why any sane player who had the opportunity to go for the green in two would ever pass it up.  Contrast that with a true risk/reward hole like the aforementioned ANGC #15, where there are very valid reasons (purely from a scoring perspective, ignoring the "I'm only ever gonna be here once" stuff) to lay it up from where you can reach it, because the combination of the layup and third are so much easier than the middle iron off a steep sidehill lie.

I certainly wouldn't trade in the 200-250 yard iron at the green for hitting a shorter iron to an equally narrow target area and still be left with a nervy pitch from an angle that makes the green quite shallow, such that if you want to keep it on the green you've got no room to miss it AT ALL.  I expect there are a lot of balls hit long into that hillside behind the green from the layup area.  If I mishit it a bit going for the green, I might end up in that long grass short.  Maybe I can find it, maybe not, but its better than a mishit either of two times you go over the canyon when playing "safe".

If I wanted to play this hole safely, I'd probably hit a 5i off the tee (whatever I needed to safely reach the fairway) then lay up straight down to where it runs out, then play the 185 yard shot to the green (which is pretty short at altitude)  But that'd only be if the first 17 holes had shown me that my driver was not working at all today so I knew better than to even try.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave:

Who says that such a golfer should be playing the tips. The tips ARE NOT for the wannnabee types -- they are there for the 5 or better handicaps who have a very good control of their shots -- hence that's why they are five handicaps.

The person you are talking about should play from the next tee up at 497 yards or even 472 yards. At that point the full architectural elements will come up to this game.

Dave -- it's critical for people to play from tees that match their handicap / skill level. You don't throw AA or even AAA pitchers against major league hitting.

Dave -- if the gent plays from the appropriate tees I see no reason why he doesn't hit all of his lay-up shots to the intended target. I mean from the 497 yards tee the man is being asked to hit the ball somewhere in the likes of 150-175 yards. If he can't do that then it's long overdue for a range or teaching appointment.

Dave -- you say blowing yourself out of the hole should not be part of the equation. I disagree. Dave -- who puts the gun to the head of the guy to go for it? Answer -- the player himself.

If the player has an option to go for it you sure as shit should know what's at stake -- you can make an eagle (3) or you can make a DB, TB or whatever. I see nothing wrong with that.

Too many modern designed par-5's are simply overwhelmed with modern technology. Jim Engh, from the courses I have personally played, designs par-5's that don't allow the strong player to impose his will simply by virtue of the big tee shot. In my mind -- that's an equalizer for those player who don't possess that kind of brute strength.

Dave -- you want it both ways -- you want to go for it and still live for the next shot no matter how it turns out. Sorry partner -- I'm not buying that. If you want to go for it then you've got to be prepared to understand what's truly at stake.

Dave -- I hope you get an opportunity to play an Engh design. There's a reason why he has been most successful in the Digest assessment of Best New courses. I'm not a huge fan of all his works (e.g. Santuary) but I think he's vastly under-appreciated by certain denizens here on GCA.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,

I've repeatedly asked you some questions which I thought were pretty straight forward, but to my dismay you have repeatedly avoided answering them.  For instance . . .

-- I  asked you to evaluate the merits of the hole as it pertains to two low handicap players . . . playing from the same tee . . . where one is a short driver and one a long driver.   I dont think it is that complicated, but you keep talking about 40+ hackers, 25+ burly guys who occasionally hit a long drive, or having the players play different tees.

--  I asked you what significant options this hole presents for the golfer who cannot reach the green in two and you go on and on about the choices and challenge facing the big hitter who can.  

--  I asked you which of Mr. Engh's designs you consider better than the Valley Club and/or Pasatiempo, and you respond that Lakota is Mr. Engh's best design.  

--  I asked you to give me examples of places at Winged Foot or BB from which recovery is impossible and you list holes with bunkers and rough.   Even at my level I can occasionally recover from bunkers and rough, even if recovery only means a hack out!

Every question unanswered.  

Matt, will you answer my questions as asked?  If not, why not?  

Are you so dogmatic that you cant even answer my questions?  

And Matt, please dont tell me you have answered my questions, because you haven't.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave M:

I answered your questions as fully and as complete as possible. Frankly, whether you think it's to your satisfaction is not my concern.

There are areas at Bethpage Black where recovery is impossible -- there are also areas where the word "recovery" is truly limited -- assuming you find the ball in the high rough on any number of holes and I'm not factoring in the grueling terrain. Dave -- you're silly point is that because the canyon at the 18th at Lakota is not playable ergo it becomes a lost ball and is therefore a bad hole.

I believe Lakota Canyon Ranch is a better overall design than Valley and Pasa. That's my opinion from having played them. I also think Engh is much more talented than you and so many narrow-minded types on GCA believe.

Dave -- if and when you go to Colorado and happen to be driving on I-70 you might want to play the hole / course and see it firsthand for yourself. If you have an open mind -- a questionable proposition at best -- you can then weigh in with a personal observation.



Dave S:

How about wake'n up and smelling the coffee! The lay-up area is MUCH WIDER -- repeat after me -- MUCH WIDER THAN THE PHOTO INDICATES. The architect is encouraging the player to take that route if the second shot to the green is too demanding.

How do I know? Geeze Dave -- how bout the novel thought that I have played the hole and know from firsthand experience. That would be a novel thought -- that someone who has ACTUALLY played the hole would know a helluva lot more than someone who can only opine from a picture.

After never seeing me play you're so observant about my game Dave. You're so right -- I'm all over the place and have no business being at the back tees. I have only qualified for USGA Championships and made it to match play of the Met Amateur in the New York area ... along with other wins at the local and county level ... ah, but that doesn't mean squat. No, you're right I'm a flat out chopper. Hey Dave -- for never having seen me play it's amazing about your insightful analysis on what I'm capable in doing on the golf course. Do you do crystal ball readings as well on the side?

Dave -- I answered your question about accessing the bailout area. Please re-read and enough of the silly bold face BS.

Dave -- when you say people can miss -- duh! -- no shit sherlock. I also said is there appropriate enough room for a player to hit a shot from say 150-175 yards that's 40+ yards in width. Hey Dave -- if the person can't do that it's time for some serious practicing.

Dave -- I have played courses with 150+ slopes and 77.0+ course ratings. There are holes I have played that are impossible for a full range of players -- not just the low handicaps. The 18th at Lakota Canyon Ranch gives you plenty of width and opportunity to succeed. Of course, you don't know that because you have not played the hole. Sorry, that you have to depend upon someone like me who has played the hole for a personal and direct observation.

Dave -- I'll say this again like the repeating scroll that runs continuously under the picture on a TV screen -- the bailout area is seriously wide enough to handle a full range of shots. You're the guy who barks like the yelping dog that it's not -- I was there and I personally witnessed the play of the hole by a number of groups and handicap levels. Not a person opined that the hole was unfair. Of course, that means squat to you because you opine from the high and mighty altar of "photo-king."

Let me mention that I appreciate designers who can maintain interest in the hole even if a big accurate tee shot is hit. Engh does that on his par-5's from the half dozen courses I have played. The hole will not surrender simply because of the long tee ball and at the same time allows a variety of playing abilities to secure a par or better through other clear options.

End of story ...

[Lou_Duran]

Enough of the tit for tat.

Just two general observations for whatever they are worth.

(1)  There appears to be a preference on this board for courses which look way more difficult than they actually play.  Resistance to scoring is a negative criterion.  As a rule not without some exceptions, modern courses tend to be more difficult than the much prefered classical courses.  (I had once asked one of the editors at a golf magazine about compiling course ratings and slopes from the back tees for the courses they rate, but he didn't like the idea.  I would wager that there is a substantial differential between modern and classic).

(2)  The higher handicap golfers as well as the shorter hitters don't necessarily prefer easier courses which offer few consequences to their dribblers and skanks.  This is purely anecdotal, but as a starter in the mid-1970s at the Ohio State Scarlet and Grey club, I was constantly amazed that so many duffers would wait for hours to get on Scarlet when they could play the simpler, kindlier, and yet intersting Grey course without delay.  Women and seniors who could not carry the ball 100 yards would often act with indignation when I tried to steer them to the Grey course.  Go to a multi-course facility where there is not a cost differential, and you will typically find the tournament course to get much more action.

In as far as the hole pictured on this thread, the second shot strategy is quite apparent.  If you want a shorter 3rd shot to the green with perhaps a better angle, you hit to the right and traverse the canyon twice.  If you're long or more timid, you hit directly toward the green and maybe introduce eagle and bogey into the equation.  Nearly every hole has strategic options, even if we are ill suited to identify them and/or execute the shots called for.  Personally, I don't know that I care to play a course where it is possible to do so with just a putter.  Something about variety.

[Matt_Ward]

Dave S:

Appreciate "good natured" banter.

Dave -- I'll say this again the width of the bailout area actually widens the deeper you go with the second shot. I observed no less than a half a dozen groups and frankly I asked them about the hole an dno one said it was blatanty unfair. I grant you my survey wasn't Gallup but I personally believe that if you played the hole yourself you would have a different opinoin and a far greater understanding of what makes Engh so appealing to me.

Besids Dave -- how much more room do you need. Should the architect provide space for 747 to land as well? Only kidding so don't go ballistic!

Regarding lay-down par-5's -- from the visits I make throughout the USA -- especially among the more modern designs -- there are holes where the essence of the hole is all hat and no cattle. I can research a few examples -- more often you find them on public courses by architects of today. The classic holes -- likely the ones you're referencing -- are often well done and don't allow very much in terms of errors. A classic example of this type is one of my personal favorties the 12th at Plainfield CC -- no matter how big the tee shot the hole still has plenty of bite for those who fail to execute.

Frankly, Dave, designing par-5's is really no easy feat. They have to have enough challenge to keep the better player honest but not so demanding as to cause the mid to high handicapper an exceptional amount of grief. I'm sure some of the architects who post can elaborate on the dilemmas they encounter.

[SPDB]

Matt - First of all, in my previous questions, which asked about options from 265 out, the tee played is irrelevant (unless you are equating that with the golfer).

For general consumption:

I was just thinking of ways in which I could further disagree with Matt Ward (since he hasn't really answered any of my questions), and I think I ended up agreeing with him.

I guess the best way I can describe my agreement is that perhaps the options of the  hole represents (somewhat weakly) a range of risks. I guess that the risk/reward concept in the context of a par 5 doesn't have to be such a binary safe/risk proposition.

Assuming, again, you're 265 out. Why can't the choice to:

1. Go for the green represent your absolute riskiest proposition
2. Go for the "bailout" represent a safer option, but, nevertheless, still risky.
3. Go for the end of the first fairway represent the safest option, but the costliest in terms of the shot left to be played.

With some thought, I think I've change my position on this hole, and I actually think it does involve some interesting "options." If the yardages and width Matt supplied (some of which I find dubious) are reliable than there is still enough here to keep the interest and excitement of the higher handicap, viz. it is not too much too ask a player to hit a 180 yard shot from the end of the fairway at altitude or ask him to make 200 yard carry to get a better look at the green.

[DMoriarty]

Matt:

You've not answered MY questions.  Rather, you've made up your own questions and answered them.  Very weak.
___________________________

Hey Lou it's been a while, nice to see your post.

(1)  There appears to be a preference on this board for courses which look way more difficult than they actually play.  

You've lost me already.  Take the subject hole.  It looks very difficult in the photo, yet I wouldn't be surprised if it is easier than it looks for the accomplished golfer.  Somehow I doubt this is the preference to which you refer.  

Resistance to scoring is a negative criterion.  As a rule not without some exceptions, modern courses tend to be more difficult than the much prefered classical courses. . . .

Sure, changes equipment and maintenance may have made some classic courses play easier.  But if we could somehow correct for these variables, then I agree and disagree.

For mid-handicap golfers and up, I agree that modern courses tend to be much more difficult classic courses.   However, for very accomplished golfers, I doubt that this is the case.  Take the subject hole.  It certainly looks harder than a many great classic holes.  But let's break it down a little. (Note I havent played the hole so I am just theorizing from what I have seen in the photos, and from what Matt has told us.  Feel free to correct me if you have better information.)

The major threat appears to come from the forced carries, where the golfer gets into trouble by not carrying the ball as far as they need.  Yet while the penalty for failure is harsh and final, it is rarely dished out to accomplished golfers, who generally have pretty good distance control, at least on the short end.  They may not get their distance exactly correct, but they also generally avoid chunks, tops, blades, near whiffs, and the other types of shots that end up in the bottom of canyons.   So absent a complete choke on the part of the accomplished player, the danger forced carries is largely illusory.

In contrast, the danger is very real for the unaccomplished golfer.  Chunks, tops, blades, near wiffs, etc. are far from extraordinary.  And when the hack hacks a fat one into a canyon, he suffers not only from failing to advance is ball very far, but he also suffers the punitive lost ball or hazard penalty.   And he still has to try to catch one clean to make it over the canyon.

So this particular modern hole might be more difficult for the hack, yet not necessarily more difficult for the accomplished golfer.  

So is resistance to scoring positive or negative?  Well, I for one don't like it when designers make scoring more difficult for the hack, especially when they dont make it more difficult for the accomplished player.  

(2)  The higher handicap golfers as well as the shorter hitters don't necessarily prefer easier courses which offer few consequences to their dribblers and skanks.  This is purely anecdotal, but as a starter in the mid-1970s at the Ohio State Scarlet and Grey club, I was constantly amazed that so many duffers would wait for hours to get on Scarlet when they could play the simpler, kindlier, and yet intersting Grey course without delay.

Does the Scarlet present a number of hazards from where one can no longer continue to golf their ball?   Is it possible that they just like the design better, regardless of difficulty?

In as far as the hole pictured on this thread, the second shot strategy is quite apparent.  If you want a shorter 3rd shot to the green with perhaps a better angle, you hit to the right and traverse the canyon twice.  If you're long or more timid, you hit directly toward the green and maybe introduce eagle and bogey into the equation.

I agree that the more timid player has the option of laying up his second shot on the first fairway, then trying to make the long carry to the green on his third.   But for the short hitter there is a very good possibility that the 'timidity' is based on sound judgement and lack of carry distance.  So this "timid" golfer may well have to hit his third over the canyon to the lay up area right, before trying to make the last forced carry to the green.  

So let's go to the question Matt refused to answer and play it through:  two low handicaps, one a long hitter and one a short hitter, playing the back tee (556 yds) (we all know that long hitters feel cheated if they cant play the back tee.)

Long Hitter:  First shot bashed drive.  Second shot tough uphill mid- to short-iron to green (Matt hit a seven iron.)
 
Short Hitter:  Drive to fairway (230 yds).  Carry to second fairway is around 200, so golfer lays up toward the end of the first fairway, leaving 180-190 yards uphill to the green.  Third shot over canyon to layup area.  Fourth shot back over canyon to green.  

I agree with rewarding distance, but doesnt this seem a bit extreme?  

Personally, I don't know that I care to play a course where it is possible to do so with just a putter.  Something about variety.

But you would never play the hole with just a putter, nor would many others.  So aren't you effectively saying that you have no interest in playing courses where lesser golfers are generally able to golf their ball from the first tee to the 18th green?  

[DMoriarty]

And I raise stupid hypotheticals??

Believe it or not, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.   I've seen a similar dilemna arise twice in in the non-hypothetical world.   Rustic has held two SCGA qualifiers, an amateur and a mid-am and both required low indices for entrance.   In both tournaments the officials refused to use the back tee at Rustic because the carry was too long for too much of the field to make.   I think the carry was around 230 at its shortest.   (It is a little longer now, since the flood.)  

Interestingly, a few posters here have complained that the back tee plays too short.  


Oh yeah . . . yes you do raise stupid hypotheticals.  

[Matt_Ward]

SPDB:

The yardages I provided are not "dubious" -- I played the hole and paced the key parts of the hole that have been mentioned.

[Doug Siebert]

And I raise stupid hypotheticals??

Believe it or not, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.   I've seen a similar dilemna arise twice in in the non-hypothetical world.   Rustic has held two SCGA qualifiers, an amateur and a mid-am and both required low indices for entrance.   In both tournaments the officials refused to use the back tee at Rustic because the carry was too long for too much of the field to make.   I think the carry was around 230 at its shortest.   (It is a little longer now, since the flood.)  

Interestingly, a few posters here have complained that the back tee plays too short.  


Oh yeah . . . yes you do raise stupid hypotheticals.  

There's a world of difference between a 230 yard CARRY at normal elevation versus a 230 yard drive (carry + roll) on firm fairways and 7000 ft elevation, even if a bit uphill.  I noticed that crazy thing in your hypothetical as well but figured someone else would call you on it

I don't think there are any realistic scenarios where you'll have a low single digit player who can't get home in 3 from those back tees.  A 556 yard hole at that elevation is playing less than 500 yards.  The firm conditions should cancel out the uphill.  It plays longer than 500 due to the detour to have to take if you want to use the alt fairway, but a short hitting 3 or 4 still ought to have enough spit in his swing to hit from the end of the main fairway which Matt W says is 185 to the pin.  So make that a 165 yard carry over the gunk, playing less than 150.

And I still think the direct line from the main fairway is a better play than going to the alt fairway, even if you don't have the length to make it in two, laying up to 185 and hitting 3 from there sure looks like the smarter play from the aerial (maybe the alt fairway is "anti-strategy" for the hackers )  I might change my mind if I saw it in person, since Matt is of course correct that we are all probably trying to read too much into a photo taken at a bad angle with fairly extensive shadows.

[DMoriarty]

There's a world of difference between a 230 yard CARRY at normal elevation versus a 230 yard drive (carry + roll) on firm fairways and 7000 ft elevation, even if a bit uphill.  I noticed that crazy thing in your hypothetical as well but figured someone else would call you on it

Well I havent seen the hole in person so I wont bother trying to convince you what might or might not happen.  That being said, a few comments . . .

. . .  As far as the 230 carry at RC, I fail to see your point.   The hypo short hitter could not make the 230 carry at Rustic.  In fact that is why they could not use the tee . . . the SCGA didnt think a portion of the field could carry it 230.

. . . Sure low handicap golfers can get home in three on 560 yd par fives.  But from the looks of the photos, I dont think the distance to the hole matters.  What are important are the carry distances facing the golfer.  

. . . As for your conclusion that the short hitter should lay up in the first fairway then go for the green in three, perhaps you should reread Matt's description of the required shot from inside 200 yds.  

But even if everything you say is correct, my point still remains.   The locations of the forced carries put an inordinate amount of pressure on the short hitter as compared to the long hitter.  The long hitter should be rewarded, but by how much?   In this age where the distance gap between long and short hitters is larger than ever, does it really make sense to further stack the deck in favor of the long hitter?