News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


mike_malone

Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« on: December 31, 2004, 04:24:31 PM »
 We talk here about "penal" versus "strategic" architecture. Once we use the word "strategic" we get into semantic arguments. Wouldn't the idea of having a recovery shot for a offline shot versus no recovery possibly be more clear? The meaning of "recovery" is a full swing.

   In this way one could say the designer intended the recovery shot and no changes should be made to eliminate it. Whereas when we say these changes are "penal" and the designer intended "strategy" many argue "It still is strategic;just a different type."
AKA Mayday

Donnie Beck

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #1 on: December 31, 2004, 04:27:38 PM »
Mike, hit it down the middle and you don't have to worry

Joe Hancock

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2004, 04:29:08 PM »
Mike,

Are you talking shallow vs. deep fairway bunkers, or even sand vs. water? Trees vs. no trees? I think I know what you're getting at, but give an example please?

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

mike_malone

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2004, 04:45:48 PM »
 Water is one obvious nonrecoverable-as are low hanging evergreens. I just believe that when one adds norecoverable features to a course designed for recovery,one has significantly changed the course.

     At my home course they are moving a fairway to the left near a creek. I am concerned that moving too close to the water with the fairway begins to introduce more "penalty" and less "recovery".I am thinking this differentiation may help us make decisions.

   I guess deep bunkers could also be considered nonrecoverable. So,the depth as designed would be something to keep in mind.
AKA Mayday

tonyt

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2004, 05:20:25 PM »
I think requiring a "full swing" is ambitiously unfair in defining recovery. I think that reasonable recovery involves being able to locate your ball (an infinitely more important element than your stance and swing) and hit it back into play. Sure, be able to stand up, advance it a fair way or whatever, but as long as you can find it and hit it without always having to get on your knees or take a two foot left handed jab is what is really important. Golfers at the 19th always discuss how many balls the round took, and they always know how many they lost. That is what they remember, even weeks later when discussing the course. Trees (such as low hanging evergreens) that are not allowed to suffer horrid growth around their base allow for easy finding and advancing of balls

Which is why I like good use of say a carry being over a deep trap instead of water. The deep trap may only allow a 50 yard shot recovery, but it allows the player to keep moving, keep playing, take a swing, not cost him 2+ shots and get out of there with the same ball he started with. Trees (such as low hanging evergreens) that are not allowed to suffer horrid growth around their base allow for easy finding and advancing of balls also. Although too often, clubs let unkempt growth around their bases inhibit both the search and the shot that can be played.

In general, the hole may be designed so that it is not desirable for a player in area x to get a full swing. However that is to be judged on a hole by hole basis. Either way, I think it not right to feel that an entire course's overall culture should automatically steer towards this trend, and can't fathom the lack of a full swing allowing it to be defined as truly "penal".

Anytime a player still makes nett bogey and doesn't lose a ball, I can't agree he has suffered penal architecture, especially when he has well and truly missed the desired landing area anyway!

mike_malone

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2004, 05:31:02 PM »
 Tony,
    I think you have fairly defined "nonrecoverable" golf;something I find very boring.

    I often hear that these "nonrecoverable" features make a hole harder. Harder in what way? Because you may take more shots--maybe, but isn't an attempt at executing a full shot harder to achieve than punching out.

   I much prefer the 19th hole discussions that speak of how one executed a difficult recovery shot. These discussions occur more often at clubs that have a more interesting design.
AKA Mayday

Joe Hancock

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2004, 05:35:34 PM »
19th hole discussion:

Mike: Joe, that was a helluva drop you took on 16....

Joe: Yea, I had to really concentrate to keep my arm at shoulder height....

I see what you mean. That's hardly what you want to toast a round to......

I think this thread will clear up penal vs. strategic eventually, if I quit messing around with your thread... ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

tonyt

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2004, 05:54:39 PM »
I often hear that these "nonrecoverable" features make a hole harder. Harder in what way? Because you may take more shots--maybe, but isn't an attempt at executing a full shot harder to achieve than punching out.

An excellent point, which shows I didn't properly explain mine.

Let me try it this way then. I think that in order to have the terrain crafted in a way to both penalise the player for being in this spot, and yet to avoid the dictum of chunking it full of features that make for your definition of nonrecoverable, you are going to ride too fine a line between fairway and other, that goes beyond mere angles.

Many punch out shots are not because the area is too penal. But because in making it just right, and making for the brave full shot play very frequently, elements are going to have to be in place that mean that the unlucky player is going to have a less fortunate lie and occasioanlly have to advance the ball less than 100-150 yards.

In short, my "punch out" is not because the area is penal and players have to punch out. It is because in any area that a player takes their chances in (a reasonable requirement off the fairway, since players should at least prefer to be on the short grass) will have a non-uniform result. Great if most can make a full swing. Some others can make a shot at the green, but have to craft it. And those who end up at a tree base on the wrong side, or against some swail that disallows direction of play near the green are indeed unfortunate, but that is the chance one takes. My objection was to a 90% or above chance to just make a full swing at the green from what is intended to be a place not to go to.

My ideals don't make a player take a drop. And they don't remove the shot that can be spoken about in the grillroom. And they don't remove the precentage chance that more often and not, the shot is a viable option. And they don't add the "faux difficulty" you excellently raised by boringly adding shots to the card. Just remember that if it isn't fairway, some kind of element (be it grass, a couple of trees or anything else) won't allow 100% of golfers the normal swing. If it is a feature such as blindness and no obstacles you prefer, then heck, make it part of the fairway.

mike_malone

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2004, 07:38:16 PM »
Tony,

    I want to work with you here,but I read your post twice and I can't respond much because I am not sure what you mean.

 At one point you spoke about the "chance one takes". But the reality is players end up offline because they mishit the shot not because they made a bad decision. I just believe that it is more fun if after the mishit I am confronted with a new challenge which I think I can execute. Taking a stroke penalty or hitting it sideways is not my idea of golf;it is just some form of punishment.

  I also believe that well-designed courses take the recovery shot into account. The boring course just punishes you.
AKA Mayday

tonyt

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2004, 08:41:43 PM »
Agree wholeheartedly. As poorly as I have written, none of my examples setup either a sideways shot or a penalty.

Of a round last year with a friend where we both played among our best games of the year, his most memorable shot was a down the grip hooked 4 iron around some old gums, and mine was a 5 iron played from wedge distance to keep it under a solitary low lying branch of another old gum. Now I know I'm not Mr Plant-a-lotta-trees, but those two inventive shots were more memorable and more fun than other shots we played close to the hole from regular positions.

If the new challenge is standing up and hitting it at the green with normal stance and swing, its potential for memorability and enjoyment has possibly just been wiped out for grill room talk, to the extent that it is not a new challenge at all. But that is subjective of me, and fails to acknowledge that your imaginary image of this area is going to be different from the funny looking thing in my head I've come up with. I do however believe that the misshit is not an automatic lesser evil than the poor decision. You play to a point, be it on a daring line, or a safer one. If you misshit the ball, you will fail to go where you intended, and should not be equally endowed for your second shot as a playing partner who executed his desires more correctly.

Maybe what it really is, is that what an American pictures as this exciting recoverable position is what an Aussie like me takes for granted because it is on almost every golf course on almost every hole. Perhaps the standards there are low enough that I am unable to relate to the extent of this unrecoverable zone. What is crucial to me, is that the "challenge" for this wayward player must not present itself as an opportunity that is near to that of the player in position A after a well hit drive to an intended spot. It must have some element of difference that is more than just angles. The more and more I read stuff on here, the more I think American golf not at its best might make me pull my hair out.

Golf is a game to be played, and shots thought out and crafted. The part of your premise that most alarmed me (rightly or wrongly) was thus: If the ball not cutting or hooking, trajectory controlled, run or stop, or view are not obscured or the like, then only one type of full shot is ever required. Stand up normally and swing at it normally. And that, is unquestionably the most boring form of golf on the planet. It requires no thought, and invokes no memories.

mike_malone

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2004, 09:53:06 PM »
 Tony,
     Now I see. You hate the shot like from off the practice tee. I agree to some extent.However,when I hit a good shot to the perfect spot, I don't mind that straightaway next shot. I still have to produce. As a 13 hdcper I miss quite often.But, I am speaking of the shot that affords little joy;just getting
it back into play. Or hitting it into a lake that parallels the hole with no carry benefit. Just add a stroke for a mishit . What's the point?

    To give you another example--a local course that has a shortish par 5 has bunkers on both sides of the fairway across from each other. They are in the normal landing area.The bunker depth is such that one cannot go for the green.Even though there is a creek that crosses the fairway some 30-40 yards short of the green which can easily test that second shot-not to mention several bunkers just over the creek..Each time I play it I just layup short of the bunkers and then short of the creek.---boring. Whereas at my home course we have three par fives where I always hit driver because that faint chance of getting home in two exists. And if I mishit it I still can fashion some type of recovery.

  I think my most enjoyable golf is on courses where the challenge is predominately at the green. The designer protects the hole from the errant shot but does not prevent the well executed one from success.

   There are numerous instances in my area of classic era courses that have lost much charm because of low hanging,full-bodied evergreens have been planted in areas where recovery was intended.In other instances it is just too many deciduous trees thickly planted to penalize you.

 I am not saying one should not build these types of courses where recovery is limited, I just believe they will not survive a dropoff in overall golf.

 BTW how's 2005 so far?
AKA Mayday

Doug Siebert

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2005, 02:20:56 AM »
Mike,

I fail to see why you think your shortish par 5 is a good example of this.  I'm with you on the recoverable v. nonrecoverable aspect, but I think that's a terrible example, and I think you are playing that hole incorrectly to boot.  I don't see why you don't hit driver there?  You say if you hit into one of those two bunkers you can't reach the green.  So what?  Your current strategy has you laying up short of the stream anyway!  Why not hit driver, and if you hit a good one between the bunkers, you can test the stream and go for the green.  If you put it in a bunker, you can lay up short of that stream from in the bunker just as well as you could from short of the bunkers!  Even if you totally mess up your bunker shot and only hit it 100 yards you still would only have a short iron left.

That hole is only boring because your poor strategic thinking makes it so.
My hovercraft is full of eels.

tonyt

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2005, 03:23:06 AM »
Mike,

2005 is so far, so good, but I've only had two games since Saturday in this gorgeous summer weather down here in Melbourne thus far (to be seriously rectified over the next few days).

I relate to your latest post a lot better, though I still enjoy the shot that is inhibited from being played normally, but is still not similar to playing sideways or deep in a hazard. There are courses where the challenge is predominantly around the green and I love it. And courses where it isn't, but it is done well. I think your aversion to these courses is from playing among those that haven't done it well, and just penalise you too greatly too often when you leave the fairway.

I also believe that angles and elements around the green do at times have a slightly diminished role nowadays (though not nearly to the point argued by others), and clever architecture acknowledges that you can't seriously do it around the green complex all of the time.

Another point often missed by many; the mid teen handicap player with the poor angle and a 5 iron in his hand can only easily get it to a greenside bunker or other area around the green, rather than frequently get it on and/or within 30 feet. Guess what? The same player from the perfect angle is likely to do the same. He is afterall, a mid teen marker.

Each hole is of course different Mike, but in many instances, the difference between a player in the Mayor's office and one who has misshit it off the fairway can't be kept too similar for this reason, all of the time.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2005, 03:25:31 AM by Tony Titheridge »

mike_malone

Re: Recoverable versus Nonrecoverable
« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2005, 08:12:23 AM »
 Doug,
      If I could hit a bunker shot I might agree,but the lips on these bunkers don't allow more than 50 yards in most instances.
AKA Mayday

Tags: