The Worst Hole on the Course

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You're looking at this from the idea of playing ability. I'm looking at this from the idea that golf is a game where you manuever a ball from a tee to the hole. If there is no distance between the tee and the hole... there's no point, no golf.

Kyle

Okay, I get your meaning even if it is rather meaningless in the big scheme of golf.  I am afraid the idea is a bit too esoteric for a plain spoken simple lad from Michigan.

Ciao

I think you'd find it more palatable if you place it in the context of your idea that bunkers are rather overused in golf. So long as the distance traversed is interesting enough, why use the bunker?

It is the distance to the hole that provides the exigence to hit the shot, and the situation around that distance that provides the skill test.

Furthermore, the trade off between short and long routes and hazards or terrain is the central idea to strategy in the game.

Kyle

Sorry mate, my brain doesn't work that way where golf is concerned.  Distance for me will always be one aspect of a shot rather than the fundamental aspect.  

Ciao    

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry mate, my brain doesn't work that way where golf is concerned.  Distance for me will always be one aspect of a shot rather than the fundamental aspect.  

Ciao    

If it is not the fundamental aspect, then why do you need more than one club?

[Kyle Harris]

Sorry mate, my brain doesn't work that way where golf is concerned.  Distance for me will always be one aspect of a shot rather than the fundamental aspect.  

Ciao    

If it is not the fundamental aspect, then why do you need more than one club?

To hit different shots.

I see what Sean is saying, just a different way to see things. Some people hit draws, others hit fades.

[Garland Bayley]

Sorry mate, my brain doesn't work that way where golf is concerned.  Distance for me will always be one aspect of a shot rather than the fundamental aspect.  

Ciao    

If it is not the fundamental aspect, then why do you need more than one club?

To hit different shots.

I see what Sean is saying, just a different way to see things. Some people hit draws, others hit fades.

I can hit all kinds of shots with only one club, but I can't hit my lob wedge 250 yards.

[Sven Nilsen]

To hit different shots.

I see what Sean is saying, just a different way to see things. Some people hit draws, others hit fades.
[/quote]

I see what Sean is saying, but I can't make heads or tails of your straight line theory.

I said:  "To me the player sees the safe line (which is not always the straightest line) and then makes strategic decisions to move off of that line to gain an advantage, whether that be to shorten the line of play, to set up an ideal angle (which may require covering further total distance) or to take trouble out of play"

You said:  "the trade off between short and long routes and hazards or terrain is the central idea to strategy in the game."

Is the only difference between these two statements that you believe the player's initial thought is to play straight to the pin to be "efficient?"  If so, we approach the game very differently.

If you'd like to work this through with an example, please use a dogleg hole.

[Kyle Harris]

I shall.

My definition of a dogleg is a hole where the straight line approach is either physically impossible (around water or OB) or physically improbable (obstacles which severely inhibit the ability to advance a golf ball like dense trees).

Rough is not a cause to call a hole a dogleg because the straight line option still really exists. The first trade off is between taking a lie in rough along the straight route, or a lie out in the fairway along a slightly longer route.

The derisively named bomb and gouge tactic of bombing away toward the hole with little regard for the rough is the epitome of this trade off working one way over the other. Just because the fairway is there does not mean it is the best option in many cases - especially if the player has the ability to overcome large distances with one shot.

Let's take a look at the 10th at Riviera. This example is one that many would consider a dogleg - but really - the straight line option is very much in play. The trade off is made because the putting green is situated in such a way that the straight line approach is extremely demanding - but not impossible/improbable. This is what makes the hole exciting.

In analyzing the hole in my manner, one can highlight methods in design which neutralize a big hitter's advantage - much like the 10th at Riviera continues to do. A key aspect is to make the trade off for the longer hitter equally compelling as that of the shorter hitter. Furthermore, the more the golfer is willing to sacrifice a short hole the more the golfer should be encouraged to do so (hand them the rope to hang themselves).

With your analysis, the trap exists the the architect simply defends the "safe line" with little regard to the rest of the hole. This is especially dangerous in parkland-type courses where rough may be used to "turn" the hole in the manner similar to a dogleg. These holes can often be broken if the golfer divorces himself from mowing lines and the corridor and analyzes the hole along the straight line approach.

I think we can agree that it is usually a safe, though not always ingenius or clever, method to defend the straight line approach to the hole and provide much room away from that direct line, and that this method certainly provides a less-broken and contrived challenge than sticking two bunkers around the landing zone of a dogleg and calling it good.

In theory - we're essentially discussing the same thing, yes. However, in practice I feel it is important epistemologically to make the differentiation since the former approach is more likely to yield more interesting results, in my opinion. 

[Sven Nilsen]

I think I see the problem.  I was not espousing a theory of design, but rather describing the thought process of the player when faced with decisions off of the tee.  These decisions can be very different for different types of players, and i think we may be in agreement that the goal of the architect should be to present questions for every type of golfer when they approach a shot.  While the concept of tee ball distance is fairly static for the player, the architect should be considering a range of driving distances in their attempt to present strategic options.

Using the 10th at Riviera is an interesting exercise in this regard, if the attributes of the hole are analyzed correctly.  The following thread has all the needed background: 

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,16619.0.html

As Tom Paul noted in the thread, not every hole can be all things to all players.

The hole may be reachable for the pros, but for the majority of golfers it still isn't close to being in range (which probably doesn't prevent the less prudent duffer from giving it a go).  For those that can't make the distance, the straight line should not be the option due to the angle of the green, as you noted.  Thus the shorter hitter will look to find a spot in the fairway that will give them the best angle and distance to attack the hole while avoiding the bunkers.  To get to that distance and angle, they may decide to challenge the left most bunkers, or they may decide a shot well left is their safest line.  This seems to be an analysis that works backwards from the hole, an approach you dismissed as simplistic in an earlier comment.

However, for those that can, the straight line is actually the safe line, as well as an exercise in working backwards from the hole.  To quote Brandt Snedeker:  "If you lay it up, it's almost a tougher wedge shot than it is hitting a driver off the tee. That's what's so hard about that hole. That's why you see very few guys lay up, because it's such a difficult second shot if you do lay up." 

I'd suggest that the trade off for the longer hitter on the 10th are not nearly as compelling as you suggest, and even on the safe line, its a very tough hole for the shorter hitter. 

As for determining the epistemological benefits of any differentiations, it would probably be a good thing to avoid inventing and attributing methods of analysis to those that have not espoused such methods as well as ensuring the accuracy and completeness of the arguments used to support any conclusions made with respect thereto.