[Pete Buczkowski]

This has come up in the Greywalls thread and I think its worth a discussion all on its own, where nobody gets chastised for not playing the hole in question.  My friend and cracker Matt Ward does not think there is any difference.  I can respect his opinion but will challenge him that the effects of these 2 instances do vary with the skill of the player.

For starters, I think the better player hates the forced layup because it takes away his strength, while the weaker player hates the forced carry because it exposes his weakness.  I see the major difference is that forced carry can cause havoc on a high handicapper's score.  Interested to hear others' thoughts...however, the ground rule for this thread is that no specific holes can be mentioned to exclude anyone from the conversation...lets talk design concepts only please.

[rjsimper]

Are there examples of forced layup holes that you have in mind in particular?

[Tyler Kearns]

Pete,

While forced lay-ups generally irk better players, it is still a more desirable situation than a forced carry from the forward sets of tees. While it limits the length of the drive, thereby levelling the field to a degree, it does not make the hole unplayable, simply less enjoyable for those that do not fancy this design feature.

Forced carries can be exhilirating, as long as one possesses the ability to carry the shot the requisite distance. If not, the hole is not only unenjoyable, it is frustratingly unplayable.

Therefore, I do think that there is a difference between a forced carry and a forced layup. If we are only considering better players, than no real difference exists, because both scenarios are readily accomplished.

TK

[Jeff_Brauer]

I can't recall a forced layup that caused a round to end for lack of golf balls in the bag!  But, for either, an option is always better.

For either carry or layup, I still favor an option. Its like child phycshology - you never give a small child a choice of do it or else - you give him a choice of doing two things, or doing something now or later.  When you do that, they don't object.  When forced by Mom to do something, they cry like crazy.

Now, I'm  not saying golfers are childlike, but I have found that forcing any golfer to do anything w/o a choice does lead to some crying.......


On my Cybergolf series, a gent named Tad Short asked, ‘Why don't architects use forced carries much anymore?’   It gave me a chance to illustrate with a story about another gca....

We simply want to allow everyone to finish a golf course . . . in one day! Here is a story illustrating the problem with forced carries:

Once upon a time, a famous architect renovated an equally famous club. In the process, he added a carry bunker on the par-3 9th hole. The female members were furious. "Mr. Famous Architect," they said, "Do you know that we can't carry the ball far enough to get on that green? And the bunker is so deep, we can't get out of it without hitting backwards? But you added a pond, meaning we would have to deliberately play into the water? Why, that bunker ends our round right there."  
 
Mr. Famous Architect, rather than being contrite, thought for a second, and replied, "Had I known that, I would have put it in the 1st fairway."

[Michael Moore]

Is not one faced with a forced carry after a forced layup?

Does the latter imply the former?

[Matt_Ward]

Pete:

From one cracker to another --  

Check out any number of the new desert designed layouts in the southwest for forced lay-ups. Stone Canyon -- the well done Jay Moorish design outside Tucson has one -- if memory serves -- at the 2nd hole.

Forced lay-ups are really statements of an architect being unable to provide some sort of alternative method in providing sound options. It's the vanilla and cholcate of design motif.

The issue boils down to the fact that high handicappers rarely have to deal with the forced lay-up. Ignorance for many of them is clearly bliss.

Now, if you talk about forced carries -- anything say more than 100 yards and you will likely hear this crowd whine on and on and on. No doubt there are instances where the forced carry is not reasonable.

Let me just say this -- I see both examples as being limited use of clever / sophisticated architecture.

Tyler:

Let's clear the air -- there are some people if the forced carry was simply hitting the ball across the state line of Oklahoma into Texas would somehow find the way to reach Kansas.

When people can't demonstrate one iota of golf skill then it's time for more lessons and practice tee time than moaning about the forced carry. The only thing forced is the pain the group behind is dealing with in observing the "show" for hours on end.

P.S. All kidding aside -- so don't get your dandruff up -- many people who complain about forced carries generally are playing from tees they should not be playing. Ask most people who far they consistently "carry" a ball in the air and I would bet they are off by no less than 10-20 yards. Too many golfers calculate total yardage as their carry yardage. Couple that when people play the wrong tees and you can see the train wrecks that routinely happen.

A forced lay-up is a contrivance. Allow the player to make the final determination in the manner of their play of a given hole. When you limit options you have a limited hole and with too many of them a limited course.

[rjsimper]

Forced layup gives you clubbing options....get as close as you can to the hazard? lay back even further? heck, even chunk one and still have a play.

Forced carry gives you one option - make it over.

I think they are different.

[TEPaul]

You guys ever hear of Tillinghast's "Cart Before the Horse" concept? Any of you ever read his article about it? It's precisely this kind of hole.

On almost all relatively long par 4s in this world one generally hits a good long drive followed by an accurate shot to the green. On Tillinghast's concept he basically reversed that process!  

He does admit in his article about it that it might be considered controversial but you know Tillie, he wasn't exactly a "follow the crowd" type of guy!  

[Pete Buczkowski]

Fellow Cracker Matt -

I should chastise you for mentioning a specific hole in your reply after I stated that was out of bounds in my initial post, but I'll let it slide this time.    Thanks for clarifying your stance on the matter - that both architectural principles are similar since they are the vanilla and chocolate of design motif.  Fine enough.  However, I would disagree that their net effect on play is the same - in my experience its very different.  

I'll disagree with your stance that high-handicappers rarely have to deal with the forced layup.  Maybe off the tee if the forward tees are well placed...but high handicappers have a forced layup very often when there is a forced carry - which makes forced carries doubly bad.  Watch my wife strategize around a course with forced carries and you would note the difference.

[THuckaby2]

Pete - you make a very key point here.  What's a forced carry for Matt and his long-hitting ilk may well be a forced layup for your wife, and my Dad, and others who can't belt it so far.  It is fun to watch my Dad tack his way around a course, as he's never met a carry he couldn't go around (or complain like hell about if there is no way to do so).

 

So if anything, short-knockers may well have to deal with forced layups MORE than the long-hitters!

I also think that the HOW and WHY plays a lot into this as well.  That is, very few people like a truly FORCED layup (as your wife, or my Dad.)  Most grin and bear it.  But if there is a way to make the shot - that is it's a risk, not truly FORCED - then that's a different thing.  A choke point doesn't FORCE anything - it just gives a choice.  To that end it is surely a much better thing in general than anything that is indeed forced.

TH

[George Pazin]

The issue boils down to the fact that high handicappers rarely have to deal with the forced lay-up. Ignorance for many of them is clearly bliss.

For someone who claims to watch and understand other lesser golfers while he plays a course, you have a real lack of understanding how many actually play.

As Michael and others have stated, a forced layup usually is a forced carry for high handicappers, on a second shot, which is less forgiving than a tee shot due to the vagaries of the lie.

Furthermore, the people that really have it tough are folks like yours truly. I know I'm not a good golfer at this stage of my career, but if I catch a ball solid, I can hit it as far as 90+% of golfers out there. So, I'm playing a middle set of tees, and that forced layup for you out at 300 is maybe 260 for me. So I shouldn't really hit driver (I'll either hit it poorly, and be out in the rough/trees/OB, or I'll hit it into the hazard that's causing the layup). So my play is to club down. Now, if I mishit that, I'm probably looking at 150 yard shot out of the rough just to carry that thing that cause you to layup your tee shot on my second shot.

Maybe you should pay closer attention to those guys you're golfing with.

A forced carry is a challenge to everyone. A forced layup is only a challenge to one's ego. I can't say that I care for forced layups either, but they aren't remotely close to being the same thing.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Let me enlighten you about my "understanding" since I play regularly with 20+ handicap types.

The issue for high handicap types is playing the correct tees so that they don't box themselves in no win situations with both conditions affecting their play of a given hole. Too many times the one time long hitter who really is a 20+ handicap type should be playing the appropriate tees. Pete mentioned the aspect of tees being placed properly. That's very true and a point I concur with. Too many times forward tee positions are simply planted as frontal extensions to the championship and regular tees. That may not be fair given the differential that becomes self evident as the handicap numbers begin to escalate. Women in particular do not carry the ball beyond 100 yards in most instances and need a location that understands that reality as Alice Dye as indicated in previous comments.

I observe the nature of how people play holes all the time. I also understand that when you insert the word "forced" into the picture you will likely get odd and and unusual situations since different types of golfers will be affected by such outcomes in a different manner. Quality architecture doesn't have to rely upon anything that is "forced."

I don't doubt that "forced" situations may be used from time to time as a "variety impulse" by the architect -- but too many sites where wetlands are prevalent or desert environment is the norm -- these sites are more and more used as golf development locations -- the whole concept of "forced" lay-ups and carries can simply rob the respective layout of the qualities it means to showcase.

[Tyler Kearns]

Let's clear the air -- there are some people if the forced carry was simply hitting the ball across the state line of Oklahoma into Texas would somehow find the way to reach Kansas.

When people can't demonstrate one iota of golf skill then it's time for more lessons and practice tee time than moaning about the forced carry. The only thing forced is the pain the group behind is dealing with in observing the "show" for hours on end.

Matt,

Agreed. It is the responsibility of the golfer to play from the appropriate set of tees, for their's and everybody else's enjoyment of the game. I'm not advocating designing golf courses for the lowest common denominator, that would be rather bland. I'm simply addressing the question at hand, and a forced lay-up is definitely more preferable to a forced carry.

TK

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()