Lets go cut down some trees!

[ChipOat]

This is great!  Strategic design (I espouse Jones' definition) AND Stupid Trees - all in a single thread.

[Jeff Fortson]

Forrest,

Let me clarify my position on the use of trees.

I think trees are an obvious and easy choice to deal with the problems of noise pollution, wind breaks, safety, privacy, and containment.

However, I do not feel that they are a valuable source for obstacles.  IMHO, I have not seen more than a dozen trees in my life that I thought were strategically beneficial to a golf course.  If you want to reward accuracy then build some effective hazards or slopes that have more use than a "forest" of trees, no pun intended.

Don't get me wrong, if trees are used like they are at places like Pinehurst #2 or Shinnecock I think it's great.  Winged Foot is a great example of how a club is returning a golf course to the way it was meant to be played.

Jeff F.

[T_MacWood]

No thank you. I don't have the time or desire to get sucked into this vortex.

This is my position: you are free to speek for yourself, you shouldn't try to speek for MacKenzie. Carry on.

[Dan Kelly]

Is there anyone out there who can tell us why Shivas is wrong about Augusta 13 -- the way it is played now, in the year 2003?

Because he sure looks right to me!

Classic description, Shivas, of how it would be described if it were a "par 4."

[Forrest Richardson]

Thank you, Jeff, for the clarification.

Regarding trees, a thought: Trees, in nature, are planted by birds and wind and through direct growth from one tree to a new one. Like native grasses, they appear where nature directs. On links courses there are trees occasionally. On inland courses there are trees more than occasionally — depending on the location. The reverse of these conditions is also tru in places, but now usually.

Golf course architects clear trees and plant trees. The reasons are varied. Occasionally to copy nature, erase unhealthy views, and to offer another texture to courses.

And a final thought: Trees are not as permanent as most components of a golf landscape. They come and go, fall and die, and are subject to the same sort of discussions as that herein.

[Forrest Richardson]

Shivas,

I do not subscribe to the "Penal, Strategic, Heroic" notion. Strategy is evident in all golf holes. Some more than others. I've written that, even in its apparent absence or narrow-minded route, strategy is evident. A fully open hole from tee to green brings with it a strategy of the mind — "Gee, this looks easy...no problem...can't get into any trouble..." Then whack: The mind takes over and the "strategy" is not on the ground, but between the lobes of the brain and arms and eyes and back. A narrow hole with few options is strategic in that it focuses on straighness. A quality which may be boring, but is strategic on its own.

My conclusion is that there are five types of shots expressed in golf:

Penal
Heroic
Detour
Lay-up
Open

These form holes which can be a combination, varied for different player abilities and occasionally all the same. A cape hole, for example, is mostly herioc from tee to green as the golfer "dials" away from trouble at his will.

When I hear "strategic" design I do not know what you are speaking of. I have seen plenty of bad golf design that is stragetic.

[T_MacWood]

Par is meaningless to how a hole plays...the choices remain the same...the risk reward remains the same (relative to the field, to a match, or to whatever number par is for the course)...by the way the 13th was originally designed as a par-4. The hole (and the course) was planned with idea that the membership would be made up of various skills and abilities. The model was St.Andrews and that courses ability to accomodate all levels of golfers. It is narrow minded to judge the choices presented on a given hole based completely on the elite golfer.

[Jeff Goldman]

And a new contestant enters the fray....

Shivas,  I think you are putting your attitude - aggressive all the time, onto others.  Imagine a par 4 with a 260 carry over water.  You have to make the carry or die.  Penal.  Imagine a big bunker in the center of the fairway 250-260 out.  Clearing the bunker gives the best shot at the hole, left/right a decent shot, and short, a much harder shot.  Even folks who control their ball most of the time might make a different choice each time they play the hole, depending upon wind, pin placement, how the match is going, etc. etc.  Strategic.  I think even you wouldn't try to clear every time.

Jeff Goldman

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

The reason you are digging a hole is that you can’t get the Masters and professional golf out of your head. Our friend the 10 handicap and his buddy the 18 handicap don’t always play a golf hole the way professionals do. There is no “obvious” best way to play a golf hole.

This point was brought home to me this summer while playing down at my local muni where my experience goes back more than twenty years and countless rounds of golf. The hole includes a 500 yard par 5 with a severe dogleg. Naively, I always thought there were only three ways to play the tee shot:

Most aggressive: Using a driver to cut about fifty yards off the dogleg. The reward is being left with a mid iron, a likely birdie and possible eagle. The downside is to find hazards and/or losing your ball.

Aggressive: Play right along the tree line of the dog leg trying to draw a three wood. The benefit is a chance to play for the green in two. The penalty is usually just finding your ball but needing to punch out. (This was my favorite.)

Conservative: Playing for the middle of the fairway with a 4-5 wood or maybe a long iron. The benefit is getting off to a safe start and setting up a second shot that can in turn set up an easy wedge to the green. The penalty is counting on a good wedge and one putt where you really would like to make birdie.

Now, after playing the hole many years, I finally came across a gentleman who taught me a fourth way. He tees off with a five iron trying to hit shot of about 170 yards. From there he plays through a line in the trees that I never really noticed but upon inspection does seem rather generous. All this to set up a safe third shot from about 120-130 yards.

Personally, I couldn’t imagine playing the hole this way, but my playing partner was quite surprised I wasn’t even aware of this strategy. He explained that once he got out to the 200 yard range his accuracy suffered so much that what I had previously considered the “conservative” tee shot just didn’t make sense for him.

Dave, I think the same logic applies to mid handicap players on the tee shot at Augusta’s #13. No way would every average player take the same route (line and/or club) off the tee. I just don’t believe that. You have to get the professional level player out of your mind.

[T_MacWood]

What does the fact that a 10 can hit 260 yards have to do with the strategy of the tee shot on #13 for all golfers (the majority of 10's can not hit the ball consistantly 260 yards, and the ones that can don't normally have controll over direction)?

From what I understand there are some very fine pros who hit a pronounced cut off the tee....some famous golfers over the years have had difficulty negotiating the 13th....they have been faced with very difficult choices to make. In fact it seems to me it is one of the few holes in golf that does force the professional to choose....how close do I take it against the trees and stream...do I play a controlled draw, a pronounced draw or hit it straight and rely on the slope of the ground...how often have we seen drives bail out to the right forcing another very difficult decision from an awkward position.

Most professionals render the choice out of most golf holes...like a race car driver they identify the best most prudent way to play the course and they often take basically the same line. A hole has to be pretty special for a pro to alter his decision making based on something other than how far he can hit his tee shot. The hole is also relatively unique in that it calls for a draw off the tee and a fade on the approach. If the 13th is not one of the great par-5s in golf due to the mulititude of choices and its natural advantages, then there are no great par-5s.

Again it is narrow minded to judge a hole's (or a drive's) strategic merits based primarily on the elite golfer. Until you consider all golfers...as MacKenzie did...your argument does not hold water.

[Jeff Goldman]

Shivas,

My point was to reply to your statement that strategic design is "just a watered down version of penal architecture."  I don't think so.  

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
I agree with you. In fact the best strategic holes often involve a severe hazard of some sort (the stream on the 13th, the road bunker and the road, the Pacific at CPC-16)...they force the golfer to weigh his options carefully and make the risk reward truly risky.

[Jeff Goldman]

Tom,

Some take it as a contradiction that the hazards in strategic architecture MUST be penal, but that's because otherwise, there's no point in not taking the risk.  If its just a flat fairway bunker that even I can hit a 7-wood out of, it's no big deal, but if you have to deal with a ravine or something really bad, you think twice or thrree times.  I was at Lawsonia on saturday, and got a few object lessons in this.

Jeff Goldman

[T_MacWood]

It sounds like you prefer to concentrate only on the elite golfer or the almost elite golfer.

Depending on the circumstances, of course the pros do not decide until they reach that tee.  Are they able to hit a controlled draw during the round, where do they stand on their round, is it the final round, how did they play the 11th and 12th, what are the playing conditions, wind, firmness of the ground. Based on those circumstances the golfer may choose a driver or three wood. He may chose an agressive or not so agressive line. 80% of bail outs are caused by indecision...difficult choices that your body and mind don't quite see eye to eye on....that hole has seen more than its fair share of bail outs.

If they are unable to pull off the required shot or uncomfortable in pulling off the required shot...hell yes execution or a lack of confidence in executing the required shot will effect the choices of a Bruce L or Lee T. If they choose to play their normal shot, yes they are conceeding that 3 is most likely out of the equation. If they gamble and attempt to draw the ball....that is a strategic decision that brings 3 and 7 into the equation.

I hit the ball 260 yards, but I fade the ball and rarely if ever hit a draw. My decision on 13 would be predicated on my ability to hit a draw on #10 and/or some of the prior holes. If I was playing for my life (or if I was 2 up in a match), I would most likely bail out to the right and leave a full wedge for my third and take my chances at making a four that way.

If you play golf like a moron, it doesn't matter how well concieved a golf hole might be...none of them are strategic.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

I don't think that it is the least bit unusual for a 10 handicap who hits 260 yard drives 2-3 times a round to play a tee shot like #13 at Augusta conservatively. That kind of thing happens all the time.

Part of the reason our friend is a 10 handicap - and not a 5 - is that he has difficultly repeating shots he is capable of playing. But, another reason he is a 10 - and not a 15 - is that he has learned to manage has way around the golf course and do things like avoiding shots that he is capable of playing but not likely to pull off.

Far more than the expert player, the 10 handicap's comfort level changes from day to day. Thus, when he is feeling good, i.e., he is nicely drawing his tee shots rather than fighting a duck hook, he may play the bold line hoping to set up his long approach to the green. Conversely, when his game isn't in top form, he turns relies on course management skills to get out of Dodge without disaster.

For this man, a hole like #13 at Augusta presents multiple options.

You must be playing with a different crowd to not see this guy.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

With my game in the Masters I would definitely lay up on Augusta 13, unless I was in contention on the last day and needed an eagle to have any chance to win (If we are going to be hypothetical we might as well be really hypothetical.)

I think quite a few pros do aim intentionally right (by right I mean up the right side of the fairway.)  In fact if I recall correctly over the last few years the right side of the fairway has become the predominate play.  My understanding is that by lengthening the hole Augusta took the left side out of play for the vast majority of the tour players, (because of the draw and the trees, not the distance.)  Remember Ernie Els' crucial 3 Wood tee shot a couple years ago?  After, he openly admitted that he had made a mistake in judgment by not driving to the right side:  He wanted to get it in the preferred area to go low and catch tiger so he took a chance with his 3W and that was all she wrote.

Even setting aside the past couple of years, I still think you'd find that many of the balls that end up on the right side were hit there intentionally.  Sure they are going to hit driver because it had a very generous landing area and hitting a driver put them in position to capitalize on a lucky bounce or lie.   I would say half or more of the shots on 13 end up right of center.  Are the pros so bad that less than half cant hit a draw, or are they going there on purpose.  

Also keep in mind the age of the course and try to imagine how it played for all the years before you were watching.  Do you really think all those guys always tried to hit a draw to the left side?

Shivas, you know how you take umbrage when it is suggested that short hitting, less talented player can beat a better, longer hitter by playing smart?  Well it is a little awkward telling you this, but f you really play the game you talk, then you just might be the better longer hitter the wily short hitter is looking for.  Indeed, I think that many big hitters share your attitude.  This might explain why the proposition is so well worn.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, we cant leave you out of it because your game and approach are indicative of a pretty large group of golfers.

You misremember my game, I think.  Score is pretty irrelevant for me.  If it wasnt for trying to keep an accurate handicap, I am not sure I would ever pick up a card.  Also, if anything I tend to err on the too agressive for my abilities side of things.  That is why laying up on CPC 16 was so exciting for me.  I overcame my machismo and hit the right shot.  

Anyway, I decided to go for a ground breaking, noble prize winning theory, per your comments at the end of the last post.  I started a new thread though so others can pile on once a few of you knock me down.  

See you there!