What Alice might see when looking at Engh vs Doak.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan/Rich/Jeff,

Note that Tom mentions that from certain non-preferred angles, an approach shot will be rejected.

That's only penal if there is NO other choice.

That gets back to my original point...there IS another choice, but sometimes that involves not aiming at the flagstick, and sometimes not even the green, and then using ground contours to funnel the ball towards the hole.

If the direct attack doesn't offer much chance of success, almost all of the holes offer  the indirect option.

[George Pazin]

But, to your point, I'm betting that I could pick out a Doak green versus a Rees green probably about 90% of the time.

The question is not whether you could identify which is which, given two.

My question is, if you were transported to an unknown course and someone said identify who made this green, do you think you would have a prayer in hell of saying who it was (assuming it wasn't a biarritz or something equally unique)?

That's how I read someone saying he hasn't seen a Doak green that doesn't look like a Doak green - that it has uniquely identifiable characteristics. I could of course be wrong in my read of that statement, which is why I asked for further clarification.

I haven't seen anywhere near that level of defining differences between architect's greens.

[George Pazin]

"Hard to stop" is influencing play, not dictating. Dictating would be a water hazard or some other death penalty play. Preferred landing areas is strategic under any definition.

The old penal versus strategic thing is far too limiting, if you ask me.

[Mark Bourgeois]

George

I'm pretty sure he knows what it means, he's just pulling on a string.

Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan/Rich/Jeff,

Note that Tom mentions that from certain non-preferred angles, an approach shot will be rejected.

That's only penal if there is NO other choice.

That gets back to my original point...there IS another choice, but sometimes that involves not aiming at the flagstick, and sometimes not even the green, and then using ground contours to funnel the ball towards the hole.

If the direct attack doesn't offer much chance of success, almost all of the holes offer  the indirect option.

Mike,

I won't speak for the others, but I understood Tom's point!  And, again, I haven't played the hole in question, so I will agree with you and Tom, since you have.  I agree its strategic in principle.  And I love "hit it here to get it over there" type shots and design a lot of them.

As to shots from the "wrong side of the fw,"  in some respects, challenging the very best, who are now more accurate than ever, requires putting the hazard in the green in the form of unreceptive contours.  So, to amplify George's last point, it may not be the hazard that dictates play.  More and more, its once again becoming the green contours, whereas traditionally, the idea was to guard the green surface with hazards and orient it for more advantage from one side or the other.  While TOC is very hard to access from the left side of most fw, most 20th century US gca's didn't (I don't think) contemplate making it impossible from the wrong side of the fw, just more difficult.  Thats where the grey scale may slide over to the penal side, in fact, if not in theory.


But its still a legitmate question in a general respect of "how big and/or receptive does a target have to be to be fair" whether that target is actually the pin itself, or an area away from the pin on or just near the green.

According to the USGA slope study and others, which I still think is accurate enough to design from, scratch golfers need about 15% of the approach shot width and depth to be successful 66% of the time.  So, if the target area to hit the green and hold it is approximately 15x15 yards on a nominal 100 yard approach and 30x30 for 200 yards, and it allows for roll out after it hits if on a reverse slope, it represents a doable shot.  

If the effective target angles to the right on a 200 yard approach, for example, and is 27x33 yards (or similar) with more depth towards the right, then its slightly more receptive from the right, but not impossible from the left.  If the target is 24x24 or smaller, it becomes doable by so few scratch golfers, and impossible for the handicapper.  So, even on a championship course, the question is, how far would you go in design to separate the best from the near best, given that kind of competition would happen once or twice a year on most courses?  

I know the answer is "it varies" but its one of those concepts that a gca has to ponder when fleshing out a design.

I also know that this is left brained thinking, but it goes back to the old differences of gca's seeing holes in features, and golfers seeing it in imagined shots.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

Thanks for the info, which is very interesting when you try to consider how to setup a course that is challenging for top players while playable for everyone.

[Dan Kelly]

I don't think those greens at Stonewall reject every approach shot.  But, they do make it hard to stop the ball anywhere near the hole if you are approaching from anywhere but the proper side of the fairway, so I think they fit the definition of strategic.

So Mike was exaggerating.

Correct, Mike?

If you weren't exaggerating, then I'm still misunderstanding.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Of course, its always possible that they hold the shot from the "wrong side of the fw" in spring or at a 9 speed, but don't in summer or drought, or at the newly minted 12 green speeds some courses now get.  

Just another factor that if a gca "played it safe" the course would be too dull, but if they design to the edge assmuming some kind of a conditon will be prevalent, it can get a lot more difficult, or perhaps unfair (or if you don't like that word, how about "unpleasant."

[Dan Kelly]

Dan,

Of course, its always possible that they hold the shot from the "wrong side of the fw" in spring or at a 9 speed, but don't in summer or drought, or at the newly minted 12 green speeds some courses now get.  

Just another factor that if a gca "played it safe" the course would be too dull, but if they design to the edge assmuming some kind of a conditon will be prevalent, it can get a lot more difficult, or perhaps unfair (or if you don't like that word, how about "unpleasant."

I don't like "unpleasant," either.

"Unpleasant," to me, are greens that really DO reject all approach shots, or that really do deny any access to all shots except the single CHOSEN shot -- whether that shot is in the air or on the ground. (Short par 3s excepted, for me.)

Unpleasant = no options.

I'm guessing that neither you nor Tom Doak would ever design an "unpleasant" course, by my definition.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dan,

Well, I guess you'll have to come up with your own word then!

We have discussed options a lot around here, and some folks think having several roughly equal options, based on game strengths is strategic.  Others think that is too easy, because there are no consequences.

Some think having a clearly better option and a worse one is strategic.  Others think that makes the course too hard because if players who hit the "wrong side" of the fw (but are still in the fw) and have no shot.  When they ask "what if I hit it here?,"  the answer, "well you are just screwed" has never been popular, at least in my experience.

In the US Open, the rough is such that if you miss a 25 yard wide fw, you may have no shot.  Okay, I guess.  In a sectional qualifying tourney, or a local High School or PGA Club Pro event, these are still pretty good players but that course is too tough for them.  In most cases, they set the course up for the lower third of the competitors to keep from embarassing them.

I agree that in theory, designing clever green contours that test accuracy makes sense, and negates distance somewhat.  But, whenever I find myself playing a really tough course, differentiated with greens that you really have to be "on" to hit and putt (a feeling I am still waiting for after 40 years of golfing, BTW)  I wonder if a table top size area sweet spot is what it takes to differentiate between the top two players in the field, at the expense of the other 100 or so.  Or, do you design it a notch down and figure the top two that week will somehow figure out who plays best by putting, or some other method, while still allowing average play to move along.

[Ken Moum]

Dan,

Well, I guess you'll have to come up with your own word then!

I have promoted--and will continue to promote--the use of the word unreasonable. Because that's what some setups and designs can produce... a shot or series of shats that are unreasonable for anyone to make.

Some think having a clearly better option and a worse one is strategic.  Others think that makes the course too hard because if players who hit the "wrong side" of the fw (but are still in the fw) and have no shot.  When they ask "what if I hit it here?,"  the answer, "well you are just screwed" has never been popular, at least in my experience.

In my world that's an acceptable answer, golf's not supposed to be fair. But sometimes I think that on many of the best courses, it's really not possible to have a good strategic plan unless you play them several times and figure out where to go. Most of us don't get that luxury--the "impossible bunker" thread is a good example of this.

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

Some on this thread seem to be arguing in favor of "fairness", but if we are always fair to the 10-handicap then the scratch player will never have anything difficult to do, because it's easy for him to recover even from a poor tee shot, or from a poorly thought-out one.

Where is it written that one ought to be able to hold the green from any side of the fairway?  I think it's MUCH better architecture when a hole allows holding the green from the right side but not the left, than when the ability to hold the green depends on the length of the second shot, as most Tour pro designers tend to make it.  They are trying to reward the player who hits "solid" shots, but even their worst miss goes far enough that holding the green with a short iron is no problem.

On the holes in question at Stonewall, when the greens are really firm and you are on the wrong side of the fairway, the best play is to play just short of the green (or in the rough on the low side) and try to get up and down from there, which is reasonably possible.  It's not like your approach is going to wind up in a lake or something.

[Brent Hutto]

As to shots from the "wrong side of the fw,"  in some respects, challenging the very best, who are now more accurate than ever, requires putting the hazard in the green in the form of unreceptive contours.  So, to amplify George's last point, it may not be the hazard that dictates play.  More and more, its once again becoming the green contours, whereas traditionally, the idea was to guard the green surface with hazards and orient it for more advantage from one side or the other.

So let's consider the choice between a deep, scary bunker to be carried if you're approaching from the "wrong side" versus a contour in the green that will run the ball away from that same approach. I'd argue that the latter is more "fair" to the higher handicapper. A good player is more likely to be successful in gauging and executing that carry over the bunker but he is also less challenged by the bunker shot if he does come up short. With a ball-rejecting green contour, the weaker player who comes up short ends up with some kind of tricky chip shot which (speaking as a double-digit 'capper) is more of a partial-shot penalty than landing in some kind of fearsomely deep greenside bunker. I figure a bunker with some depth to it costs a scratch player about half a stroke and costs me at least a full stroke whereas depending on how tricky the chip shot the difference can be less than that.

My own sort of Platonic Ideal of a difficult green is one where landing the ball close to the hole but having it feed away to a "wrong" spot some distance away can actually work out worse for the player than ended up in the fringe or a few yards off the green in a more favorable position. This is what I think Jeff means about moving the hazard into the green, offering pin positions such that if you attempt to hit it close you'd better be very accurate (much more than Jeff's 15% rule) while playing somewhat away from the pin is a more predictable outcome albeit with the need to get down in two from a long distance for par.

Of course none of this tends to work if the greens are soft BTW.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brett,

Our posts crossed, but see below.

Ken,

I'll go with unreasonable, too.  

Going back to the slope system research, I always thought that they felt 2 out of every 3 scratch players being able to make a shot was "reasonble".  Their target stats for 20 handicappers were bigger, naturally, to allow 2 out of 3 to reach greens. I always wondered why not 3 out of 4......maybe it takes a green the size of Delaware to get that high a statistical average.

Tom,

Apparently, we are discussing "reasonableness."  If it is written anywhere that you have to be able to hit a green from the fw, I think its in the "Book of general consensus" which I think is somewhere after Genesis and before Matthew, but I could be wrong.......

I agree that a tee shot that makes it imperative to play to the far right edge of the fw is as inherently interesting as one that asks the golfer to carry a prescribed distance, or lay up to a prescribed distance or thread a needle between two bunkers.  (In essence, you ask them to thread an invisible needle, at least on one side by asking them to hit the edge of the fw through green design)

But, I think most golfers - even low handicap ones - don't play well enough to choose and hits sides of the fw, hold greens with reverse slopes, etc.  In my mental images, I am trying to distinguish between designing for Tiger and Company or designing for the typical club champion, who is somewhat less accomplished, not even them and the C class champion.  

So, most holes ought to have an advantage from one side, but shouldn't "de-green" approach shots very often, because, the longer both players are "in the hole", the more exciting the golf, I think.  

In most cases, I being on the wrong side of the fw and that makes you hit for the "fat of the green" rather than the Sunday pin is plenty of strategic separation between tee shots, given the stats on makeability of short vs. longer putts.

So, personally I think its a matter of degrees. If we are talking a few greens per course that over time, prove that more good players than not can't hit them at least somewhere on the putting surface after a reasonable tee shot, no problem.  If it was a course full of them, I doubt many players would have as much fun, theoretical strategy or not.  Coming to the "Xth Hole" knowing you simply can't hit the green without two perfect shots isn't as much fun as knowing you can hit it with two pretty good ones.  

Strategy with an execution level you can't attain does, IMHO, slide over to penal side of things, and is not much fun.  But, we may all be talking the same thing with a slightly different twist on it.