[Steve Strasheim]

Lay-up shots are my least favorite golf shot. I particularly dislike lay-ups where you hit less club off the tee than you do on your second.

Having said that, how are lay-up shots designed? Do good designers actually plan them, or are they just forced to accept them? What is a well-designed lay-up shot?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

[Mark Johnson]

When I think of layup shots, I think of risk reward.

Whether it is a drivable par 4 or gettable par 5, there should be a penalty is you miss going for it and the layup spot should provide a clear approach to the green.

My biggest pet peeve is risk/reward holes with no logical place to lay up or no penalty for missing.

[Greg Chambers]

My biggest pet peeve is risk/reward holes with no logical place to lay up or no penalty for missing.

If there is no penalty for missing, then it is not a risk/reward hole.

[Steve Strasheim]

My biggest pet peeve is risk/reward holes with no logical place to lay up or no penalty for missing.

If there is no penalty for missing, then it is not a risk/reward hole.

So, a good lay-up shot requires a potentially penal alternative shot.

I'm not a fan of the penal school, so that might be why I dislike lay-up shots so much.

[Mark Saltzman]

Steve, I think you misunderstand the definition of penal school.

Inherent in strategic design is penalty.

Yes, of course, there must be penalty associated with the lay-up. A golfer will think about the risk/reward of taking on the more difficult shot, and part of that should include the difficulty of the lay-up. Often there is too much focus on the 'going for it' shot, leaving the lay-up boring, simple and without requiring thought.

[Phil McDade]

I like layup shots that make you think. And I'd also argue you can't take the layup shot out of the context of the shots to follow.

To use par 5s as an example, many to me don't necessarily make the golfer think if he chooses the conservative route. It's simply: hit the ball as far as you can within reason so you can keep it in the fairway.

I like par 5s where taking the easier, more conservative route doesn't necessarily lead to an easy 3rd hot. Here's an example from a course I'm not that fond of, but I think it's one of the better holes: University Ridge (RTJ Jr.) near Madison, WI:

Here's the tee shot out of a chute (this is the way-back tees; the tees used by most players don't have nearly the chute-like impact this does). The hole bends a bit to the left, and then back to the right; fairway bunkers along the right side of the fairway are to be avoided if you want to reach the green in two:



Here's the choice faced by the golfer. The green sits up, quite a bit, from the fairway, as its benched against a hill that is the highest point of the course (and location of the clubhouse). The green, somewhat narrow, runs from front-left to back-right, angled away. For the player going for the green in two, the shot is a fade of sorts "slotted" into the green opening left. It's a shot with some risk to it, as bunkers long and left of the green, and another right, can catch the errant shot. The layup is pretty easy -- plenty of width for it here -- but then the third shot is a tricky uphill pitch over a large mound (the dark grassy area fronting the green right) to a narrow green. The further the golfer plays to the right with his layup, the more difficult the pitch, as the third shot is best approached from the left side of the fairway. I like this choice of a lay-up; the easier route (not going for the green) is not really difficult, but must be thoughtfully played, and still leaves the player needing to execute a decent shot for a run at a birdie/par. A sloppy 3rd shot could easily result in a bogey or maybe even worse.

Two looks:

[Kalen Braley]

I've always felt diagonally placed bunkers in the 100-150 range is a good way to add interest to a par 5. 

It really makes the player make a choice instead of just getting up there with a 3 wood and whacking the ball as far as you can hit it.

[Dan Kelly]

I've always felt diagonally placed bunkers in the 100-150 range is a good way to add interest to a par 5. 

It really makes the player make a choice instead of just getting up there with a 3 wood and whacking the ball as far as you can hit it.

I like them closer to the green -- say, 60 to 90 yards, making the resulting bunker shot less than a full shot.

[Jim Sherma]

Kalen and Phil - I generally agree with everything you've said as far as having the lay up being thoughtful and such. The one thing I absoloutely hate is when a the lay-up option is just as penal as the go for it option. One example I can think of is the par 5 4th at Iron Valley(Lebanon, PA) by PB Dye. A decent drive leaves a downhill shot with water left from around 200-220. All in all a makeable shot but depending on the lie and with the water left and enough other trouble around the green a lay up should be an option on a par 5. Unfortunately the lay up is to a sloped fairway that is tighter than the area by the green with just as much if not more trouble, and then throw in a tree effectively making the lay-up option even tighter towards the water unless you like being blocked out high with a wedge in your hand. In other words, going for it is less risky, or at least no more risky, than the lay up option. I've seen this at other par 5's and short par 4's and it always annoys me. If you're laying up shouldn't the added distance and likely worse angle be penalty enough?

[Steve Strasheim]

Steve, I think you misunderstand the definition of penal school.

Inherent in strategic design is penalty.

Yes, of course, there must be penalty associated with the lay-up. A golfer will think about the risk/reward of taking on the more difficult shot, and part of that should include the difficulty of the lay-up. Often there is too much focus on the 'going for it' shot, leaving the lay-up boring, simple and without requiring thought.

Mark, perhaps so, it wouldn't be the first time I've lacked understanding.

I was thinking about a course I used to really like and how it's been chopped up. As I was redesigning/restoring one of the par 5's in my mind to what it should be, I remembered the big wide hazzard of tall grass that cut across the fairway on the old course. If you hit a good drive, it wasn't really an issue with something like 125-175 to clear it on your second. But, if you hit a weak drive, you would be forced to lay-up on your second. I always liked that hole, it was beautifully laid out and rewarded a powerful drive. But, I thought, why even have the tall grass hazzard across the fairway? It has little impact on the good player and requiring a long carry makes the hole nearly unplayable for the beginner.

Then, I was thinking about a classic old parkland course that I like. There isn't a single lay-up shot on that course. You might have to hit sideways out of the trees, but if there is a line to the green you will always go for it. That seems better to me and makes me wonder why there are so many lay-up shots on other courses I play.

Phil,

Thanks for that post. The pics are great.

Jim,

I agree 100%. Only thing worse to me is when you don't have a chance to go for it and it's just a real dificult forced lay-up. Nothing quite like having to lay-up twice to get over a hazzard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()