Is golf and golf course design sufficiently elastic to allow for...

[Bart Bradley]

true creativity to continue?

A game like checkers or tic/tac/toe does not have sufficient elasticity in the rules/game board to allow for creative, unique play.  It leads to rather quick boredom with the game and does not inspire a great deal of study.  Chess on the other hand certainly is more elastic (despite the same game board) and has enough variability of piece movement to allow for unique, bold ways of playing.

Golf is certainly more elastic than chess as the type of shots, playing abilities, and natural topography can be quite variable;  but it is limited.  Aren't most holes designed today simply variations on previous themes?  How many truly unique, creative ideas are out there?  How many are left? 

Are there new or different ways of playing the game or designing the golf course to increase the elasticity of strategy and design?  Along these lines, wouldn't a more common usage of the PAR 6 hole or PAR 7 allow golf course architects much more flexibility and possibly bring whole new ideas to hole design and strategy.

I don't know...what do you think?

Bart

[RJ_Daley]

Bart, I could go along with that notion of some courses having more par 6 or even par 7 holes, with the counter balance of more par 3s or even a 2 thrown in there.  I think that is one way to stimulate a new approach to GCArchitecture in an elastic sense. 

Of course the obvious is the lengthening of holes to meet newer B&I improvements.  But, I don't think that is what you are asking.

I also think that there is an elasticity of golf technique and strategy in the games of golf, in comparing the Stableford or storke play or matchplay.  There might be some sort of elasticity inherent in the various betting games and their variations.  Or, there could be new games within the game being conjured up or invented.  Along the lines of new or different golf games within the framework of the game, I think it would need changes to come from rules of golf being altered to allow different playing techniques or strategies that are verboten now.  I'm not saying that would necessarily improve the institution of golf.  But, if elasticity amd change is all one is after (perhaps as a cure to boredom) then rules alteration may be in order.  Contact golf might expand one's mind or elastically broaden the golf game/sport concept, making it a game for young rough men in top athletic shape ... 

Or, make up your own rules and regulations on B&I or field of play, but don't call it 'golf'. 

[Ed Oden]

Bart, I am impressed.  You've gone and jumped into the deep end of the pool.  As you know, I am far more comfortable in shallow waters.  So I will only wade in with a few simple thoughts.

How could there NOT be sufficient elasticity to permit creative variation in play and design?  Each property site is inherently unique.  The potential for creativity is always there.  Whether that potential is in fact utilized is an entirely different question.  The former is God's work.  The latter saddled with the imperfections of man.  Hasn't man shown the creative ability to build an interesting course almost anywhere on any site?  Is man capable of building a crappy course almost anywhere on any site?  I'd call that elastic.

Ed

 

[Bart Bradley]

Wow    this really generated a lot of original ideas.

Ed, yes, natural features do allow for new and unique "variations" on existing themes...but really, truly unique concepts?  I mean there is the straight hole, the dogleg right, the dogleg left...there is uphill, downhill...etc...there really is a limit to what can be done at present.  Are there new types of hazards just around the corner?

What I really mean is "without a change in conventional golf, can anything truly original still be produced?" 

Yeah, Ed, I am off the deep end...drowning ...and nobody is throwing me a rope.

Bart

[John Moore II]

We've talked about par 6 holes on here a time or two since I've been around. The only thing is, they tend to turn into gimmicks. Kind of like the Bearded Lady or a Two Headed Hog or some other circus sideshow. But I would like to see them, especially a well designed one. Tom Doak somewhere back in the threads made a par 6 that sounds very interesting to play. I'd like to see it.

As far as a par 2? If you use the USGA definition, it would have to be a big putting green and not a hole that requires any kind of shot. Even at 60 yards (the min yardage to meet PGA standards to be a PGA Recognized Facility) you couldn't expect people to get up and down every time, and there would obviously be "no" birdies. And I think a putting green would be very boring and would be far more a gimmick than a par 6.

But overall, I think course design has enough room to move to make it viable for a very long time. I don't think I have ever played a course overall where I thought "that whole place was exactly like some place I played before." So, I think no matter where you go, there will be sufficient variability to make golf courses interesting.

[Carl Rogers]

the game at the highest levels needs to get a lot more flexible.  one day a hole can be a par 5 and the next day move the tees forward to short par 4.

why not?  not just a slightly different course from day to day but a radically different course.  how else to create a real challenge for the top 200 in the world?

does it really matter if the usual par of 72 or 71 or 70 be radically altered?

[jeffwarne]

As much fun as cross country golf is, it's hard for me to believe there aren't more par 6's.
Risk reward doesn't have to mean putting for eagle on a par five where you hit a bold 5 iron- It could mean putting for eagle by ripping two woods 600 yards on a par 5 or three on 750 yard par 6. 

The current trend of shortening par 5's and making them par 4's only further makes it less of a cross country game.
If the terrain allows for it, why not 2,3,or 4 par 5's and a par 6 and perhaps 5-7 par threes.
There are so many formulaic new courses here in the US my head spins,
(I think every par 5 in Florida is 566 from the golds and 542 from the blues)
(and the par 4's ar 460 and 420)although they're getting better-but you just don't see many par 5's of unusual lengths.

[John Moore II]

As much fun as cross country golf is, it's hard for me to believe there aren't more par 6's.
Risk reward doesn't have to mean putting for eagle on a par five where you hit a bold 5 iron- It could mean putting for eagle by ripping two woods 600 yards on a par 5 or three on 750 yard par 6. 

The current trend of shortening par 5's and making them par 4's only further makes it less of a cross country game.
If the terrain allows for it, why not 2,3,or 4 par 5's and a par 6 and perhaps 5-7 par threes.
There are so many formulaic new courses here in the US my head spins,
(I think every par 5 in Florida is 566 from the golds and 542 from the blues)
(and the par 4's ar 460 and 420)although they're getting better-but you just don't see many par 5's of unusual lengths.

What would you say is an unusual length though? Length doesn't matter as much as variety. I mean, you can have all 4 par 5's on the course be 550, but one be dogleg left, one sharp dogleg right, one downhill and one uphill. They are all the same length but all play far different.

I think they need to have a variety of styles, not to much lengths.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bart

What if instead of holes and courses being in a "compression" state of elasticity the reality is holes and courses are in the "expansion" state?

Elasticity is a powerful and winning concept but are par 6s and 7s the answer to the current state?  What about half-par holes -- both the stretch (long par 3s and 4s) and compression (driveable par 4s and gambling par 5s)?

Also, this might be called "longitudinal elasticity"; do you have any thoughts on "latitudinal elasticity", for example the number and positioning of tee boxes?

How about using Grandfather as a case study in where you might recommend longitudinal and / or latitudinal changes, expansion and / or compression?

Failing that, we can always hope for a change in ball regulations...

Mark

PS Thanks for starting a thoughtful thread.  Enjoy the holidays as from now on you are going to be helping yourself to lots of punch and cookies with Jugdish, Mohammet, and Lonny.  I mean Larry.

[Bart Bradley]

Bart

What if instead of holes and courses being in a "compression" state of elasticity the reality is holes and courses are in the "expansion" state?

Elasticity is a powerful and winning concept but are par 6s and 7s the answer to the current state?  What about half-par holes -- both the stretch (long par 3s and 4s) and compression (driveable par 4s and gambling par 5s)?

Also, this might be called "longitudinal elasticity"; do you have any thoughts on "latitudinal elasticity", for example the number and positioning of tee boxes?

How about using Grandfather as a case study in where you might recommend longitudinal and / or latitudinal changes, expansion and / or compression?

Failing that, we can always hope for a change in ball regulations...

Mark

PS Thanks for starting a thoughtful thread.  Enjoy the holidays as from now on you are going to be helping yourself to lots of punch and cookies with Jugdish, Mohammet, and Lonny.  I mean Larry.

Mark:

As far as tee boxes go, I generally agree that you can add elasticity within an existing golf course both longitudinally and latitudinally.  I saw on another thread that many people didn't like the idea of radically changing tee positions on a given hole...I don't understand that line of thinking.  I think nearly all par 3 holes would benefit from having many different tee positions ...but what this gives is variety and elasticity of the same old, same old...Grandfather would have a much easier time moving tees forward/back...the holes play down tree lined corridors and there is less ability to move "horizontally".

BUT, I was really speaking of how we can expand on our current game so that new types of holes and strategies could be employed ...So that truly original holes could be designed...when was the last new general type of hole created?  Someone will need to educate me on that.  It seems to me that the more shots required on a hole the more variables that can be introduced...thereby substantially increasing the possible combinations.

Mathmatically the total number of variations is the number of variables multiplied by each subsequent number less...for example if there are 5 independant variables, the total number of possible combinations is 5x4x3x2x1=120.  Therefore, simply increasing to 6 variables gives 720 possible combinations.  It just seems to me that having longer holes (par 6 or 7s) would drastically increase the possibilities of creativity by giving so many more possible resultant hole options.

I have no idea what your PS means...will you please explain it to me...I am sure that my neurons are just no making the proper connections.

Bart

[Mark Bourgeois]

Animal House!

I think the argument against par 6s and 7s is they don't present a different type of challenge than do three-shot par 5s, just more of the same.  What's special about hitting driver, 3-wood, 5-iron, wedge as opposed to driver, 5-wood, wedge?

Are they really independent variables are they?  They seem highly dependent upon the prior shot.  So why not break down the mega test into its "prime factors"?

What about these elasticity notions:
double greens
alternate greens
shared fairways
split fairways
reverse courses

Not sure if the El Boqueron threads antedate your time on here.  For a wild look at elasticity, check those out.

Mark

[John Moore II]

Animal House!

I think the argument against par 6s and 7s is they don't present a different type of challenge than do three-shot par 5s, just more of the same.  What's special about hitting driver, 3-wood, 5-iron, wedge as opposed to driver, 5-wood, wedge?

Are they really independent variables are they?  They seem highly dependent upon the prior shot.  So why not break down the mega test into its "prime factors"?

What about these elasticity notions:
double greens Good idea, tough to do in the modern housing course.
alternate greens Great idea when implemented correctly, but space and cost might make these not great options.
shared fairways I would question the safety of this, unless the fairways are 100+ yards wide.
split fairways Good idea
reverse courses  The modern housing course has made this idea obsolete, no course built through houses could be made to play in reverse. And other courses are less common these days.

Not sure if the El Boqueron threads antedate your time on here.  For a wild look at elasticity, check those out.

Mark

I really like the ideas, but so long as courses are built through housing developments, these options are far less likely.

[Kirk Gill]

It's the flexibility of the golfer's minds that are in question.

I've heard folks on this forum complain about par 4's or 5's that don't allow them to hit driver from the tee.
Let's say a designer created a par 4 where the first shot had to land in a very small area (say, the size of a green) that is surrounded by trouble, and is about 170 yards from the tee. The second shot would then be a 230 yard shot.

What would folks say? I'm not saying that would necessarily be good design, but it would be different. Too different, too "creative" to be accepted?

Golf has a lot of tradition, a rich history, and a highly developed system of rules. But even more, it has a lot of golfers that are used to all of the above. Breaking loose of that would be tough.

[Bart Bradley]

It's the flexibility of the golfer's minds that are in question.

I've heard folks on this forum complain about par 4's or 5's that don't allow them to hit driver from the tee.
Let's say a designer created a par 4 where the first shot had to land in a very small area (say, the size of a green) that is surrounded by trouble, and is about 170 yards from the tee. The second shot would then be a 230 yard shot.

What would folks say? I'm not saying that would necessarily be good design, but it would be different. Too different, too "creative" to be accepted?

Golf has a lot of tradition, a rich history, and a highly developed system of rules. But even more, it has a lot of golfers that are used to all of the above. Breaking loose of that would be tough.

Kirk, if we can't break loose of some traditional ideas, I can't see where there are too many original ideas left.  I agree with you, that most "original ideas" willl probably be junk...but the truly new, genius ideas must be given room to develop.  I am not sure that the currently accepted game of golf has enough elasticity to allow for something truly new.

Earlier this year, I started a thread about the "E" shaped green Doak built at Ballyneal...he jumped in and said the idea was not entirely new ...he had conceived this green as a variation of a green he had seen elsewhere.  If we can't break loose of tradition, can we really see something unique or are we stuck with just variations on old ideas?

Mark:  The longer the hole the more combinations of hazards/lies/directions etc exist...You might have a uphill, downhill, dogleg left, uphill hole or maybe you could have a lengthy split fairway ...one side narrow and much, much shorter ..the other longer and much, much wider...split fairways are hard to make meaningful because, usually, the difference in risk/reward is not pronounced enough to make the decision hard ....with a 700 yd hole could you make the distance differential substantial and the potential reward greater?

Bart

[John Moore II]

Here is a response I managed to coax out of Tom Doak about how to design an interesting par 6 hole.

Kenneth and Bryon:

Okay, I'll play your length game, just this once.

Let's say the hole is 725 yards, and my nasty cross hazard is from 450 yards to 525 from the tee (200 out from the green on the near side, 275 on the far side).

The only way to reach the green in three would be to carry 525 yards in two.  If you can't do that (the 260-yard hitter), you might as well just play the hole patiently as a four-shotter, although you don't want to screw up your drive or second shot and get into the rough to make your third harder, and you obviously don't want to top your third shot.

The 280-yard hitter CAN make it over the hazard in two, and onto the green in three, but he's got to hit two excellent shots back to back to succeed, and if he tries the second shot and doesn't pull it off, he's at a disadvantage, with a longer fourth shot.

Of course, in all such examples, the hole will work better for some players than others.  For the 320-yard driver, the hole described above is no problem ... but if we make it hard for HIM (or her?)  to get across in two, then everybody else had better be playing a different tee.

That would be a very interesting hole, playable for the average player, and a birdie chance for the better player, or a player with large "stones." And it would be an outside the box idea, to a point.

I think holes need to be designed with great width, allowing for as many options as possible.

The idea put forward about a hole that was 170 off the tee with 220 into the green would not be a viable hole. It would a kind of silly hole. Be kind of like something seen at Tobacco Road or Tot Hill.

I am all for odd ball ideas, as long as we can make them functional. Thats the key, is being functional.