Define Shot Values

[Ed_Baker]

Tommy Paul,

The way I interpreted Rich Goodales opinions was that every golf shot on every course has SOME "value", not equal, just some. I think he is correct.

As a matter of fact your hilarious post on the guy who kept hitting himself in the nuts at the driving range would serve as the ultimate illustration of every shot having SOME value. In that instance the value of that mans' shots was the hilarity it provided to the other range players, the priceless mirth to generations of golfers as the story is retold, and the peace of mind it provided the mans' wife because he was forced to leave her alone for a period of time! Was the "value" equal? No, but you have to admit that there was "some" value.

BTW, could this be where the term, "AW NUTS" came from? Now that would be lasting value, what a great game we play!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

Ed-san has it right.  All I've ever said is that all shots, holes and courses have some value and encourage some strategic thinking from the golfer.  Every hole has some "position A" and every approach shot has some desired angle and trajectory.  Some of each obviously have more of each than others.

As for "shot values" I'm still confused.  I always thought it was being used on this site as a shorthand for architect's intent, i.e.:

"_____________ (fill in the GAGA) designed the __________ (fill in the hole) at ___________ (fill in the course) to be a cut 3-wood off the tee followed by a mid-iron banked off the entirely natural looking mound-like feature on the right side of the green complex.  With new technology, the pros are bombing drivers over the trees and hitting wedges straight at the flagstick, completely negating the shot values that ______________ intended."

What a lot of the good discussion above tells me is that we don't have a common understanding of the meaning of the words.  The closest might be something like "the relative degrees of interest and difficulty of the shots one tends to be faced with on a golf course."

And don't despair, TEP, I very much do believe, and always have, that architects and developers and shapers and superintendents and members and others can and do make a very big difference in the relative "shot values" of a course, as defined above.  The only thing I remain stubborn on is whether or not it is useful or a distraction to consider what these people do, collectively and over time, as "art."

[Jim_Kennedy]

After reading all the posts on this thread I'm going with the following if I'm ever asked to define the shot values of a course:  "The use of a variety of shot types and their relation to the requirements of the playing field.

[Jim_Kennedy]

shivas,
No apologies necessary. You may be appalled but I applaud your effort in even trying to identify the most elusive notion ever to befall golf.
  
I hear you about the weather! I spent two weeks in Houston and a month in Fla. and then came home in March to more winter than we had in Nov., Dec. & Jan. combined. It's about 32' w/flurries here in Connecticut at the moment and I'm ready for a dose of springtime.  

[texsport]

Jeff

I'm getting into this discussion a little late but my thought is that "shot values" are high when a player is rewarded for taking a calculated risk in order to be rewarded. The risks that different classes of players can reasonably take are obviously quite different as are the rewards they can reasonably expect.

In deciding what risk a player would attempt on any shot, a key factor is clear visualization of what is before him/her. The better the player, the more precisely he/she needs to aim their shots. Aiming a 280 yd. draw around a dogleg is more demanding than aiming a 240 yd. tee shot to just hit the fairway. So I think clear targets are critical to tempt players to risk potentially rewarding  shots. Without targets, all classes of players aim it down the middle or better players might guess where to take a risk. A course where all classes of players aim safely or hit solid shots into unforeseen trouble is not likely to be rated high in "shot values". I believe that courses with high "shot values" must have clear shot targets.

The problem for the architect is that different players require different targets. Better players require clearer targets. High handicappers may be less aware of specific targets as they are less likely to hit a lot of very accurate shots.

If all holes were dogleg lefts with a bunker on the corner, the bunker might serve as a target for all classes of players, those who want to fly it, those who can't reach it, and those who might aim at it to keep their fade in the right side of the fairway. But, what is the design philosophy on other holes for multiple classes of players, assuming you agree with my theory on targets to tempt players ?

Texsport