Architect 'v' Player.

[THuckaby2]

I tend to agree with Dave and Jeff about this and their explanations have been great.  I have learned something today.  But one thing still has me uncertain:  my example of #2 at Pasatiempo.

The entry to the green there really seems to break left 50% of the time, right 50% of the time.  It's a VERY fine line as to what side of the ridge one lands on and thus which way the ball "breaks"... of course wind and weather can and do effect this as well, but even in benign conditions it does remain a very strange 50/50, especially because everything your eye sees seems to tell you it's gonna be 100% break to the left.

I still think Dave owes me a beer for this, but I am willing to leave it open to further review.

 

And even if he does owe me a beer, this is still a very rare exception.  Of course, it's also a very exceptional golf hole.

TH

[T_MacWood]

Dave
Some of the more complex greens from famous courses  that have confounded me: #1 NGLA, #13 Crystal Downs, #2 Pinehurst

Jeff
"Again, we basically agree, yet your response sounds contentious.  If you play TOC once, you know which greens slope away.  That wouldn't take hundreds of playings to figure out, would it?"

You make it sound so simple. Many of those greens are complex as far as contours are concerned--internal and around the perimeters.  The fairways expansive, your approach could be coming from any number of angles and distances. The conditions of the wind and ground change often. The greens are enormous creating the potential for many pin positions and approach putts.

[George Pazin]

Riviera #10 seems to confound even the best players year in and year out.

I would also be surprised if anyone found the many decisions at Oakmont to be all black and white.

Don't we argue about decisions that the big boys make in the majors every year?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Huckaby,

I almost posted about mounds sitting right on the edge of the putting surface - sometimes a chip shot just landing on the green (and your Pasa #2 fits this mold) can veer wildly, depending on a matter of inches, which side of the hill it lands on.  In that case, yes, the course design and green contours can confound.

And, as Tom MacWood says, the large, complex greens at TOC can have similar effects on putts. I can recall a few tryiing to get it just to the top of a ridge, but having it roll back, or putting over a hump, missing just to the wrong side, etc.

I never said it was simple, far from it.  And I agree that the TOC is certainly one course that would require anyone more than a few plays to learn completely.  It took Snead, Hogan and others a long time to learn it, and learn to love it, for that matter.  Tiger seems to have caught on a little quicker, no?  In any event, Shivas is probably thinking of more traditional courses, in less wind, etc.  After all, Chicago's moniker of "The Windy City" refers to politicians, and not the wind.

(OT-Shivas - Out of Chicago's 9Million population, how many votes will be cast on Tuesday?  12 Mill? 20Mil? Its still vote early, and vote often, no? )

The 10th at Riv brings up a situation not mentioned - competitive position at a key point in the round.  The odds of driving the green/making birdie, etc. don't change much, even in varying winds and pin locations, but the percieved need to do it does, based on tournament day, leaderboard position, etc.  Any edge of par hole has this potential.

Semantics time again - does the course or hole confound the golfer, or the notion of par?

[Marc Haring]

If I could just interject here?

Remember a couple of years back at Royal St Georges when a little known guy was the first person to turn up about 10 days before the championship started. Did he not play the course everyday and got a local caddy who was telling him to aim 40 yards left and hit a wedge from 240 yards out. I think he won it that year. Don’t think he’s won anything before or since!

[Brent Hutto]

Marc,

I believe you've picked an invalid example. All the Tour players (other than that one guy) will tell you that Sandwich isn't a suitable course for a major since the fairways don't bounce right and a perfect shot (down the middle with a driver) will end up off in the rough.

So perhaps in answer to Mr. Schmidt we could say that at the highest levels there isn't a course that better players can't understand after playing a couple of times AMONG THE COURSES SUITABLE FOR A TOURNAMENT THOSE PLAYERS PARTICIPATE IN. The definition is somewhat circular, of course.

[TEPaul]

I'd suggest for those of you who think you've figured out a good golf course that has plenty of slope and contour and character throughout, that if they put some speed and firmness on that course you'd find a course that you haven't figured out at all compared to what you thought you knew. When they put some really good speed and firmness on a course like NGLA the course completely comes alive and things go on with the ball out there you never even imagined (and this can be done with none of it "going over the top"). In that "maintenance meld" it'd take even the most observant amongst you months of playing that course every day to even notice and particularly to understand all the nuances of it. Some of you can try to deny that any old way you want to but there's no question at all that you'd be wrong.

[THuckaby2]

Tom Huckaby,

I almost posted about mounds sitting right on the edge of the putting surface - sometimes a chip shot just landing on the green (and your Pasa #2 fits this mold) can veer wildly, depending on a matter of inches, which side of the hill it lands on.  In that case, yes, the course design and green contours can confound.

And, as Tom MacWood says, the large, complex greens at TOC can have similar effects on putts. I can recall a few tryiing to get it just to the top of a ridge, but having it roll back, or putting over a hump, missing just to the wrong side, etc.

Jeff - thanks.  That's exactly what I was trying to get at re #2Pasa... so methinks Dave owes us a beer.  

These instances are few and far between, without a doubt though.  He did just ask for ONE, however....

TH

[THuckaby2]

I wish I knew your middle name.  I'd mimic a mother's voice and give you the best "David ____ Schmidt, you get your behind in here and answer my question" you've ever heard.
 

I've brought up Pasa #2 three times now.  Oh I know, I am small potatoes, you beat me around regularly, you're going after the heavyweights in this thread... But Jeff Bauer seemed to understand my point there, and agree with it...

I want my beer.  Or at least I want one of your classic rebuttals.

TH

[TEPaul]

"And, TEP, I completely agree with you that courses come alive with possibilities with the ideal maintenance meld.  Again, though, isn't that fairly obvious?"

Dave:

Sure, it's obvious as a matter of general fact. What isn't obvious when golf courses such as those mentioned here "come alive" in that way is the multiple complexities (nuances) about their "playabilities" that arise compared to the way they play if they aren't that way. There are literally thousands of little ramifications that surface that effect your thinking, shot selection, shot making, what can happen to your ball in numerous circumstances "through the green", on the green.

In other words, if some golfer, any golfer, can figure out all those potentially influential things (nuances) in a couple of playings of the golf course he'd definitely be more observant and intuitive than any golfer I've ever heard of. When great courses are like that they take a ton of "getting to know".

My own golf course is a good example. I've played it hundreds of times, maybe thousands over the last 30 years and the way we maintain it now, this year, nuances have showed up I just never knew before----tons of them. I get to know new ones every time I go out there.

But if the course was as soft and receptive as it used to always be, well, then, I pretty much knew all there was to know about it about 25-30 years ago! But it's not that way anymore and it takes getting to know all over again. The difference is that now there're hundreds of things that need to be known, when there wasn't before.

This kind of thing is in the architecture of course which can be so different from course to course, but it doesn't really show up or come alive until maintenance practices are used that bring all those nuances out of the architecture. That's why I call this thing the "maintenance MELD---it's when those particular maintenance practices are used (melded into the architecture) that bring various types of courses' inherent architecture alive. The important thing to know is which types of mainteance practices are ideal to bring any particular type of course's architecture alive and into a form of strategically optional equilibrium for that golf course.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Well many thanks for the answer, at last.

I get what you're saying - the strategic choice becomes accept the 50/50 inevitability of the run-in shot, or find another way... but you have to understand that from far back, there IS NO other good way.  It's too far for the high cut that would be required, for normal people anyway.

As I said, often times one is faced with a long shot coming from the left side of the fairway.  A shot long enough that playing it over the front left bunker is not a wise play - the ball will come in too hot, and long is dead - high rough, then OB.  Left is dead too, OB very close in.  So a very reasonable play is to try and bounce it in from the right - like a redan, yes.  

And the issue here isn't PURELY that sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.  That is the effect, but it's not at all like the redans at N. Berwick or NGLA - there, the spin of the ball or the weather or hitting a pebble or something is what would cause the "uphill" bounce.  At Pasa, there's a very confounding ridge that slopes toward the green, but ever so slightly has a little downside on the right, so that the ball can and does kick right off of it... And all this against a general overall slope that goes VERY much to the left.  Call it a "slope within a slope".

And it's VERY hard to see, even right up close.  Oh, if you've played it enough times, you've likely seen the effect.  Well, maybe YOU Dave Schmidt haven't, because I doubt you'd ever leave a tee shot far enough back such that anything but flying it at the hole with less anything more than 8iron is your play.  But for average or shorter hitters, this does come up, as we sit 180+ from the hole and try to figure out a way to get it on the green.

So it's not just a random or luck thing - although surely that does play a role.  More importantly, on this hole, it's a very subtle ridge - AND THIS IS THE IMPORTANT PART - that does confound the strategic choice - because you can't really see it, even after multiple playings you never know really to trust it, and thus it does leave you scratching your head as to what is the proper play.  If anything, on this hole ignorance is bliss, because if you do make the play to try to run it in, as I say it's 50/50 or better that it will work just like it looks like it should.  But then that odd time happens that you get the inexplicable uphill kick, and the fun begins.

So it's not so simple as accept the 50/50 or find another way.  The other choice is to try and fly it at the pin anyway, even knowing the dangers of long and left and hoping for the green to be softer than normal or to get lucky, or perhaps even just leave it in the bunker - that does leave an uphill sand shot - and with the run-in from the right being so unpredictable, but your eye telling you it should be VERY predictable, well... the more you play the hole, the less certain you are about the proper choice if you are far back.  It remains confounding.

I do think if you look at this in this light, you will admit you owe me a beer.  Or I'm BETTING that you will.  

[George Pazin]

If choices are obvious, why does anyone ever make a bad choice?

[THuckaby2]

If choices are obvious, why does anyone ever make a bad choice?

Oh man George, there are countless reasons for that...

1. Poor judge of weather conditions - the choices can change based on weather and golfers often miss that
2. Poor self-awareness, that is, less than a good concept of one's true abilities, and the chances of actually pulling off the shot
3. Just taking an unjustified risk due to competitive situations
4. Trying what the hell shots just for the fun of it
5. Poor execution - the greatest thinking in the world doesn't matter if you don't hit the ball correctly.

There are plenty more.  I'm with Dave that the proper choice is usually pretty easy to discern (my Pasa#2 example being a rare exception for which I am trying to win a beer).  PLAYING the proper choice doesn't always go along with that.

TH

[THuckaby2]

 
Of course I love the fun way of playing the hole.

BUT... I think it goes beyond being simply a hard shot that doesn't turn out like one wants.  From far back it is that, oh yes it is... But the difficulty is also in discerning which shot to even try, which as we both know is usually pretty easy.  On this hole, one is never really sure what he can count on, and what is the best percentage play.  And it's all due to the confounding ridge running in from the right.

That is, your eye tells you immediately that bouncing it in from the right is the proper play.  Hell, a miss right sure looks like it'ss always gonna be better than a miss left.  BUT then experience tells you you can't count on the ball bouncing back to the left... and dammit, the chip from above and right is gonna be VERY tough, damn near impossible to stop near anything but a far left pin because of how the ground slopes away... So you start thinking flying it at or over the bunker might be a better play.... Then you remember a pull is gonna mean death, as is a hard bounce off the green... So you go back to trying to run it in from the right... and the circle starts over....

To me that's an instance of a confounding choice, caused by the architecture.  It remains rare.  But there it is.

TH

[George Pazin]

So something like Tiger's tee shot on 5 (?) at the Masters a couple years ago was obvious, yet he overlooked the obvious?

Someone wrote a book called Through the Green (I think) maybe 10 years ago that detailed the LA Open where DLIII & Freddie went to a playoff in '92. This writer had full access to DLIII throughout the tourney and collected his thoughts. He spoke almost every day about #10 and the vexing decision about whether or not to go for it. This is a player who was arguably the best or second best golfer in the world at that moment in time. He didn't seem to think the choice was obvious. I suppose 12 years of technological advances may have made that decision clearer - but maybe it made it more difficult as well, since more people can now consider attempting to drive the green.

I think what you guys are saying (mistakenly, IMHO) is that the conservative choice is obvious. But unless you are playing golf just for fun (nothing wrong with that, it just makes the decisions easier) or don't give a damn about what you shoot (nothing wrong with that either, also makes decision making easier), I think the choices are not always so crystal clear.

To use another hole as an example, there is a story that Hogan used to play the second shot at Oakmont #10 well past the hole, past the green even, so that he was chipping uphill - legend has it when questioned, his response was something to the effect of "I'm gonna be down there anyway, better on the second shot than third." But most competitors at the recent Amateur didn't just do this, and they played the hole almost every was imaginable.

I agree that most choices are obvious, but maybe that's a big part of what makes the really special courses special.

I also think there is some splitting of hairs on how each of us is defining decision making. Many competitors have noted that at ANGC #12, even when they try to play safe, that flag perched out on the right often causes them to adjust sometimes even involutarily during the swing. You'd call this an error in execution, but I'd call this indecision.

[THuckaby2]

David my man:

First, understand that this isn't about ME, and the shot is WAY WAY WAY longer than 7iron distance.  We're talking 4iron at the very least, sometimes even a wood if the drive goes too far left.  It's often out of the rough, as well.

But anyway, I'm with you on how to approach this and it takes me all of about 2 seconds to just hit it at the bunker, allow for my normal cut, and hope it bounces back left off the ridge.  If it does, great, I'm on the green.  If it doesn't I stand there again amazed at how this cool ridge kicks a ball uphill.  If I pull it, I reload.  If I hit it straight, I hope for blessings from the golf gods that it hits the green and stays, or finds the bunker with a decent lie.  I know my limitations, I know how infrequently I hit shots exactly where I want them, and I know how to play percentages.  Yes, it's not rocket science.  But then again I am also rarely too emotionally tied to the result of any shot.  

To properly assess this, you have to think of it in a serious competitive situation, with a shot hit by a serious golfer who really IS tied to the result of the shot.

And for him, the more he plays the hole, the more perplexing it gets - IF HE REALLY CARES.  Oh sure, a fine way to handle it is to just punt like I do - and maybe that fact will cost me my beer here.  

But you simply can't ask for confounding situations and then chalk up an example of such to "paralysis by analysis" - that's not fair.  You have to allow for a golfer who takes very careful consideration of all options and truly does try to find the best one.

And in this case, the best one really isn't as obvious as it seems at first glance.

If you're gonna tell me no confounding choice exists because with any confusion you just punt and say what the hell, then OK, I won't get a beer from you.

But that simply can't be your point here.  That's way too easy.

If that is your point, then I agree and the beer is on me.  But it's gonna be a freakin' Old Style light due to how weak your point is.  

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

Well join the rest of us re lack of success at Pasa.  I think I've had maybe two decent rounds there in my 40+ lifetime.

Interesting though, in terms of holes that own one, I've always had decent success on 1 and 2 (relatively, they are tough holes), but the ones that have a Tom Huckaby title deed are:

3 - I just don't have the shot to hit that green from the blue tees;
5 - no reason for it, I just suck
7 - ditto
8 - the day I twoputt that green I will dance with glee
11 - choke city, WANT to play it well too badly
16 - (until the other day when I FINALLY birdied that beastie).

So is there any wonder why you and I have had team success there?  Take a look at that... none of our gag holes are in common....

 

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff.  I've now added my deal before yours, so you and all the world can see why we ought to play well as a team there:

1.  Inevitable disaster.  Dump drive in trees.  Screw up 2nd.  Scrape on.  3 whack.  Nice double.
TH:  I have no right to play a hole this difficult as well as I do, but I've made more 4s than 5s on this hole... very few 6s... don't think I've ever made a 3, but that's OK - 4 wins a LOT of the time.

2.  I've hit balls so far left and right that I couldn't hit a 5 iron from one to the other!  The epitome of popcorn golf.
TH - same deal as 1.  I've got you covered, bruthah.

3. That shot doesn't phase me and I usually play this one OK.
TH - it sure as hell fazes me.  Carry me and don't hurt your back.

4. By this point in the round, I've given up and have played this hole under par in the aggregate, probably -2.
TH:  I tend to play this hole well also.  We rule.

5.  I never seem to club this hole right.  Plus, half the time, I'm doing the post birdie f-up thing.
TH: UH-OH.. this is trouble.  I never hit enough club on this hole also, and on the rare occassion I hit the green can't seem to make any putts.  We just try to hang on here.  Maybe we can convince each other to hit the proper club.  it does play very long.

6.  The day I hit a good drive on this hole will be the first. It's funny.  If I hit my good drive here, I'm at least 60/40 to make birdie, but I never hit it good here for some reason.
TH - a push-slice the other day notwithstanding, I generally hit great tee shots and this hole.  So let me go first and keep it in play.  One of us will make 4.

7.  I play this one OK.
TH - thank god, I rarely do.

8.  Same.
TH - ditto re 7.  Teach me to putt this damn green.

9.  Varies.  I've played it well and like a total idiot.
TH - you and me both.  We pray to the golf gods that we are not taking the idiot role.

10. I play this hole well, generally.  Probably under par, total.  I think that last time out there, I talked Joel and Pete Galea and our 4th into playing a dime a point scotch game on the 10th tee and proceeded to stiff one and make 3.
TH - your hole again, bruthah.  Too long and requiring too much hook for me, and the green also has me spooked.  Keep the back strong.

11.  Varies.  I've made bird and X.
TH - I tend to only get the Xs.  Carry me, oh great one.  No X for you this time.

12.  Why the hell can't I play this hole?  It's fricking easy.  I always have a wedge in, no matter what I hit off the tee.  Oh, wait! That answers my question: "I always have a wedge in.  Nuff said.
TH - leave this one to me - I usually can make 4, have made many 3s.

13.  Varies. Birdies and snap hooks into junk.
TH - I can usually manage a 5.  Again, I'm Mr. Safety, you take a rip at a drive and reaching the green.

14.  Usually play this one pretty good.
TH - me too, for whatever reason... it is a tough hole.  But again, we rule.

15.  Varies.  I've made 2 and X.
TH:  uh, me too.  Have to hope Mr. Ham and Mr. Egg are present.

16.  I've made 3 but nothing worse than 5, so on the whole, it ain't so bad.
TH:  WHEW!  I now have that 3, but I surely have made more than 5 plenty of times.

17.  #%^%&^*@$%!@%^^&!!
TH - leave it to me.  Again, two gags the other day notwithstanding, I can handle this hole.

18.  Varies.  pars and doubles.  Story of my life.
TH - I promise I won't make more than 4.  You make a par and we're good.