To what extent is 'temptation' incorporated into design?

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent is 'temptation' incorporated into design?



"I can get there, I can get there.......whoops*, no I can't!"


"I can get to that pin no problem, no problem at all......whoops*, no I can't!"


"Easy up-n-down from here........whoops*, no it's not!"


Cape holes would be one sort. What would be others and why?


Which architects are particularly adelpt at using temptation and what holes would be good examples of them using it in their design?


Atb


* insert other word as you deem necessary/appropriate!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Also known as the sucker punch....most architects put a few of these dramatic type holes in, others try to be more subtle.  Typical is the alternate fw to shorten the approach shot, going for the green on a par 5 in 2, and Cape Holes.

There is some debate as to the best way to do this, a la Pete Dye writing that if you give them a  shortcut, then the shorter second shot also ought to clear a hazard, vs. the long way being the harder approach, too. Others believe if you take the risk and succeed, it ought to reward you with an easier second shot.

For alternate fairways, run some doodles and you find that doglegs on the long route need to be pretty stout and the hole needs to be fairly long the long way around, as the shot differential needs to be at least 2.5 clubs to be worth a risk.  It helps if it lowers it from over 180 yards to under 160 yards.  Risking a short cut to go from a 7 iron to a 9 iron isn't usually deemed worth it......

Just a few thoughts.  Look forward to some examples from others.  Hope it doesn't turn into another Doak and CC are the only ones who can do this well thread......

[Ian Andrew]

After reading Jeff's comment, I guess I'm not subtle. I don't use as many bunkers as most, but I do like them to force a decision. On tee shots I don't bunker outsides or even sides. I'm a strong advocate of interior bunkers creating carry angles and most of my work is about "can you, will you."

From the tee almost everything is about temptation and risk because that's the most fun for me as a player. Therefore my work is very much an expression of the same idea.

Now at greens ... that's another story ...

[Peter Pallotta]

Thomas - I can't add much of value here; but because my homage to Sean's course tours is still fresh in my mind, as are some of my favourite-looking holes on some the English inland courses, it strikes me that those old Colts and Mackenzies seemed more about "enticement" than about "temptation" -- as if the prize for your (public school) indiscretion was more likely a few bits of Turkish Delight than it was a date with Rita Hayworth.

Peter
     

[MCirba]

Based on courses of his I've played, I'm interested to see how Kelly Moran would respond to this question. 

Of course, I'd like to hear from all other architects here as well but reading the question and responses to date brought Kelly's courses to mind.

[Kalen Braley]

Cape Holes to me are the obvious ones, especially where there is a very real "bite off as much as you can chew" temptation.

The other one I see is sucker pins.  Even with a lot of local course knowledge, most still can't avoid to go right at it, even though they know it will require a super precise shot to pull it off.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thomas,
 
Good question.
 
Diagonal greens present the golfer with that dilema as do cross bunkers, especially diagonal cross bunkers.
 
Echelon bunkers can also present that dilemma as well.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,


My third sentence was referring to the non subtle first suggestions....not the subtle ones.  Sorry for confusion.

The problem I see with single bunkers "forcing a decision" is that they may only force a decision for 1-5% of the players on any given day, who hit it within that critical distance, after figuring wind etc.  It seems more and more we need to have long cape type hazards if we want all (or most) players to have the same thrill.

I recall a bit of discussion here on the "subtlety" of a cape hole not using water.  Tom Doak had an example in Anatomy of a Golf Course of a second shot carrying an angled ridge, cut at fw height, as opposed to a split fairway with steep rough bank in between.  That is the kind of feature I was referring to as subtle.  After thinking about that, I went back and looked as some of my double fairway holes, and realized I could have achieved the same temptation with just a slightly wider than normal fairway and a change of grade to separate landing zones you might aim for.

Of course, the next level of discussion would be, "what type of course benefits from subtle?"  Most would tend to hit them over the head on a once in a lifetime/once a year resort course to make sure they "get it" in their one play.  Private clubs and even muni's expected to see mostly repeat play probably do better with subtley in conceptual sense.

Pat,

I have relayed discussion with Tripp Davis whereas he likes long "bow tie" type greens at 45 degrees angle so you have to match up distance with direction to hit the green.  Honestly, I don't see that as any temptation, just shot management, and its hard, not tempting! 

Even any angled green tends to set up a draw or fade, and you have to judge where to aim, but aren't tempted to do much other than the highest percentage shot.

I wonder if the inherently bigger target and sub targets of a fairway works better with the angles than an approach, usually with one general target?

[Thomas Dai]

Diagonal greens, just what I was thinking Pat. Narrow ones in particular, maybe with a few internal/external slopes and some evil hazard on either side but with an easy entry point if the player positions their previous shot(s) appropriately.


 Very good point about diagonal bunkers. Presumably streams, too? First time I've come across the phrase echelon bunkers so thanks for highlighting it. You learn something new on GCA every day!


A question about diagonal angle and direction - given equal ground, should the diagonal be nearest on the left and furthest on the right or vice versa? I know that some variety is good but I'm thinking that most golfers are right handers and most players hit slices so how would that effect the use of diagonals in terms of temptation?


Atb

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,
 
When I play greens like # 17 at TOC or # 7 at NGLA, depending upon hole location, temptation abounds.
 
Even with wedges for approach shots, I'm tempted to be agressive and attack the hole location.
But, then, I reconsider.
I still may attack the hole location and then again, I may play safe.
But, the temptation is clearly there.
 
The 6th hole at Mountain Ridge has a great cross bunker cut into an elevated plateau.
Depending on conditions and my prior play that day, I'm always tempted to challenge that feature.
 
Streams, especially diagonal streams are also tempting.
 
The 12th at Plainfield might be a good example, as is the 18th at Rockaway River.

[Rick Emerson]

I think most good drivable or drive and pitch par 4's are built around temptation. Iron off the tee and wedge usually yields par and sometimes birdie, but an excellent shot can yield an eagle or an easy birdie and boost my ego. However that also usually brings the nasty hazards, bad angles and bogey or worse into play. I also think the lower your handicap the more tempting it is because I know and can hit that shot, but it might be a low percentage of the time.

[Bill_McBride]

I don't really care that much about "temptation."   As Clint Eastwood said, "A man has to know his limitations."   I do, however, like to be made to think on the tee, I don't like holes where long down the middle is the best option. As Patrick said, diagonal bunkers accomplish this, as do centerline bunkers.   I remember a round at an RTJ course in South Florida where almost every non par 3 featured fairway bunkers left and right, and green side bunkers at 5 and 7 o'clock.  Boring!

[Thomas Dai]

Ah, but how many players know what their golfing limitations really are rather than let their ego and vanity get ahead of their brains and to what extent do those who design courses use design to get inside the mind of the player?
atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

To use Patrick's example of TOC 17, there is also the "didn't come all this way to play safe" attitude.  I suspect that angled green is sacred there, but would be rebuilt at almost any other course in the world as just too difficult, and wouldn't be built on a modern course, except a replica course. 

I have built 3 copies of that green, but 2 on par 5 holes, as it was originally intended and one on a driveable 4, which is tempting, but is also a low percentage sucker play, as ups and downs are pretty hard.

[Bill_McBride]

Thomas,

To use Patrick's example of TOC 17, there is also the "didn't come all this way to play safe" attitude.  I suspect that angled green is sacred there, but would be rebuilt at almost any other course in the world as just too difficult, and wouldn't be built on a modern course, except a replica course. 

I have built 3 copies of that green, but 2 on par 5 holes, as it was originally intended and one on a driveable 4, which is tempting, but is also a low percentage sucker play, as ups and downs are pretty hard.

Is one at The Wilderness?  😀

[Peter Pallotta]

Thomas - I think there are a couple of less obvious enticements/temptations that we don't see very often anymore (at least on the courses I play):

1 - Canted Fairways, when it is appears that an easier approach will be the result of being on the 'high' side. Does a golfer like me try to hit a fade when the slope is from right to left, and thus hold the ball on the high-right side (or conversely try to hit a draw to hold a left-to-right slope)?  I can only rarely pull off a controlled fade or draw. Do I risk for the sake of a tantalizing approach shot hitting a slice or hook into the woods instead?

2 - Diagonal Ridges across the entire fairways, the 'further' end of the ridge opening up the green to the approach while the nearer edge being a much shorter carry off the tee. If know that if I hit my drive as well as I can I will carry the further edge of the ridge and have a straight-ahead second shot and a birdie chance -- but if I don't carry it and fall short instead, I will have an uphill stance and a blind shot in.   It would be an easy choice, except for the fact that I don't "hit my drive as well as I can" very often.

Peter 

[Sean_A]

On tons of good courses temptation abounds as temptation is perhaps the central concept in strategic architecture. 


I don't think it has been mentioned yet, but the very Rossian feature of laying up to the top of a hill (leaving a longer approach but a visible target) or trying to drive over it to the flat (leaving a shorter but obscured/blind approach) is one I always like.  In between is no man's land leaving a dowhhill lie to an uphill green.  Of course in the days of Ross many of these holes wouldn't have worked nearly as well because very few could drive to the flat and not many could drive to the top of the hill.  In essence, today the design doesn't work so well for expert players, but very well for many other golfers.  If I could talk to Ross this would be a topic of choice. 


Pietro


I haven't come across many of canted fairways examples, but a beauty is Harborne's 13th...which is a take on St Enodoc's 4th.  The drive, however, is blind, thus increasing the pressure because the furthest edge of safe line out right (right to left cant) can't be seen....gulp.  When the course is green there is half a chance to stay high.
   


When the course browns it is a fight not to drift too far left into trees.




Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,

To use Patrick's example of TOC 17, there is also the "didn't come all this way to play safe" attitude.  I suspect that angled green is sacred there, but would be rebuilt at almost any other course in the world as just too difficult, and wouldn't be built on a modern course, except a replica course. 

I have built 3 copies of that green, but 2 on par 5 holes, as it was originally intended and one on a driveable 4, which is tempting, but is also a low percentage sucker play, as ups and downs are pretty hard.

Is one at The Wilderness?  😀

Which Wilderness?  MN or TX?  But, in either case, no.  My Road Hole greens are at Bridges of Preston Crossings (driveable par 4) and Weeks Park, both in TX (Weeks has had the lower part removed) and Sand Creek Station in KS, on a 510 par 5.

[Niall C]

I have relayed discussion with Tripp Davis whereas he likes long "bow tie" type greens at 45 degrees angle so you have to match up distance with direction to hit the green.  Honestly, I don't see that as any temptation, just shot management, and its hard, not tempting! 

Even any angled green tends to set up a draw or fade, and you have to judge where to aim, but aren't tempted to do much other than the highest percentage shot.

Jeff


Can I suggest this; that amateurs can play more kinds of shots than professionals, it's just the vast majority of kind of shots aren't intentional ! The pro basically knows his/her limits and is more consistent. Therefore there is likely to be more temptation for the amateur given their less consistency. In other words, they might be gambling on hitting a shot as well as they do say 40% of the time. The pro might do it 95% of the time thereby being less of a gamble.


So taking the bow tie type greens that you refer to above, the shot for the amateur might be readily within his capability but not necessarily be a percentage shot. It's that disparity between capability and likely success that brings the temptation.


Does that make sense ?


Niall


edit; should have read "not necessarily"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

Well, there are certain limitations in trying to categorize shots.  No doubt the bow tie green (and TOC 17 is one, really) creates temptation even with a wedge to clear the road hole bunker to the tight back pin, vs. playing safely right to the wider and deeper area.  There is a choice and an advantage there due to differences in target size left and right of that bunker.  And the left is far more open than the right back.....

Many 45 degree angle bow tie greens are more or less the same width back to front, obviously with a slight constriction in the middle.  Many have similar hazards, but there is also some strategy if missing one side or the other creates different recovery options, other than all sand or grass. 

What is the real safe alternative?  Play for the front of the green, where a short shot will probably hit fairway, and accept a 90 foot putt or 120+ foot chip from fairway?  Otherwise, missing the severely angled bow tie only results in punishment...... and taking enough club and picking the correct angle as much more than a need for perfect execution. 
 
But, I hate to be a picker of nit.....if we have to have a label (we don't) I was just thinking the combo of factors on those typical bow tie greens is more execution than temptation, but I see your point.  And, agree the details of design can take a penal green to a tempting one, depending on arrangement.

[Thomas Dai]

Good point and very understandable if one is visiting a course just once - "I've come all this way and spent all this money so I'm gonna give it a go".


As to angle and temptation what about par-3's, even shortish ones?


How about a hole we know well from TV, the 12th at ANGC. Shallow green but wide and angled in such a manner that the left portion plays shorter and the right portion plays longer. Bunkers and stream and the steep bank all along the back. Wind a factor too apparently. Being short lots of temptation but Nicklaus has been heard to say something like "hit the tee shot over the centre of the front bunker irrespective of pin position".


Atb

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas,


Not a bad example.  It may not require angle on the approach.  Almost every green should probably have a tight, tucked, "Sunday Pin" in one area, and the choice of going for the pin or hitting to the fat middle of the green is always good when present. 


Maybe not real exciting on the temptation scale, perhaps, but more typical of the real strategic choice on most strategic approach shots.

[Bill_McBride]

Thomas,

To use Patrick's example of TOC 17, there is also the "didn't come all this way to play safe" attitude.  I suspect that angled green is sacred there, but would be rebuilt at almost any other course in the world as just too difficult, and wouldn't be built on a modern course, except a replica course. 

I have built 3 copies of that green, but 2 on par 5 holes, as it was originally intended and one on a driveable 4, which is tempting, but is also a low percentage sucker play, as ups and downs are pretty hard.

Is one at The Wilderness?  😀

Which Wilderness?  MN or TX?  But, in either case, no.  My Road Hole greens are at Bridges of Preston Crossings (driveable par 4) and Weeks Park, both in TX (Weeks has had the lower part removed) and Sand Creek Station in KS, on a 510 par 5.

Texas.  I was thinking one of the back nine par 5s had a little lower tier.  Fuzzy memory but remember one unusual green like there.  There is also a short par 4 with a two level green with a big slope down to the right side lower level.  Fun stuff.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the reversed the nines, so I may be off here, but you may be thinking of 15/6, where part of the green hides behind some mounds, a la the Dell Hole, or the 7th/16th, with its long skinny green with pond right.  10/1 is a toilet seat green.  11/2 has an elevated green.


None based on the Road Hole as far as I recall....and I think I would!

[Bill_McBride]

I think the reversed the nines, so I may be off here, but you may be thinking of 15/6, where part of the green hides behind some mounds, a la the Dell Hole, or the 7th/16th, with its long skinny green with pond right.  10/1 is a toilet seat green.  11/2 has an elevated green.


None based on the Road Hole as far as I recall....and I think I would!

You would definitely be the one to know!