Incremental punishment ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Given that the greens are approximately the same size, shouldn't the golfer be punished more for missing a green with a short club versus longer clubs ?

Shouldn't the adjacent hazards/bunkers be far more penal when a wedge is the intended club of choice, versus a fairway wood ?

A wedge versus a 7-iron ?

A wedge versus a 5-iron ?

A wedge versus a 3-iron ?

A 7-iron versus a 3-iron ?   etc., etc.

Shouldn't the recovery in general be more difficult, both within the putting surface and outside the putting surface ?

[Mac Plumart]

Given that the greens are approximately the same size,

I'm confused by this.  Greens vary in size, at times drastically.  Don't people bitch if par 5's have small greens?  And long par 4's seem to ideally have large greens.

[jeffwarne]

Given that the greens are approximately the same size, shouldn't the golfer be punished more for missing a green with a short club versus longer clubs ?

Shouldn't the adjacent hazards/bunkers be far more penal when a wedge is the intended club of choice, versus a fairway wood ?

A wedge versus a 7-iron ?

A wedge versus a 5-iron ?

A wedge versus a 3-iron ?

A 7-iron versus a 3-iron ?   etc., etc.

Shouldn't the recovery in general be more difficult, both within the putting surface and outside the putting surface ?

sometimes,but definitely not as a rule.
otherwise you have a series of "fair " holes, rather than some hard, some easy with a wide range of outcomes and variety in scoring
I love 320 yard wide open holes and 485 yard par 4 holes with a tough green and difficult recovery

[Ronald Montesano]

I'm confused by this "buy your clubs off the rack" approach.

One cannot claim that the club of approach for all players is a ________, just as one cannot demand that all players purchase clubs off the rack.

How does an architect make a green of proper challenge for me with a seven, when long-hitting Mac is coming in with a wedge? I don't believe that a green can morph to accommodate each individual golfer.

Why punish the shorter hitter, who will come in with 2-6 clubs more than the longer poker?

[Jed Peters]

Given that the greens are approximately the same size,

I'm confused by this.  Greens vary in size, at times drastically.  Don't people bitch if par 5's have small greens? 

They should; you'd be coming at them with a wedge. To Pat's point, the surrounds should be more penal, and the shot more exacting since you'd be coming in there with a higher lofted iron.

And long par 4's seem to ideally have large greens.

You are coming in with a longer iron, therefore the green should be more accommodating and easier to hit. Recovery shots should be that much easier.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Generally, yes, I have always thought so.  But, some players think a bunker should be no more than they can see out of, because blind bunker shots are "more luck than skill."  Whatever.

I have relayed this before, but a shaper once asked me the same thing and my sound bite was "Make it one foot deep per the iron hit in" (i.e., 7 foot deep for a 7 iron)  As mentioned, it doesn't have to be exact, and the free form bunker makes it impossible to be exact, but as a general principle, I agree.

[Scott Warren]

Patrick:

Tom Doak wrote on here once that he thinks what's worth considering is not the relation between approach length and green size but between approach length and the size of the hazard-free area around the pin, green or otherwise.

I think that marries in with what you're getting at here.

I agree with Jeff Warne that 18 holes of "what makes sense in principle" is probably not something to shoot for.

[Ronald Montesano]

This is almost a Peter Kostis-type argument, aimed at 1% of 1%...

If the shorter hitter cannot avail himself of the carom off the hill or the kick off the downslope, not only is he coming in with the usual greater amount of club, but his disadvantage is compounded. Are we then saying that such a short hitter should lay up and come in with a pitch? Are we saying that such a short hitter should move up a tee deck or two to then come in with Patrick's optimal club selection?

[Peter Pallotta]

If we value options and freedom and strategic choices, then we should give the golfer the 'option' of being a fool,  the 'freedom' to bite off more than he can chew, and the 'choice' to make a decision he will soon regret.  

There are times (and circumstances and pin placements) when, even with a wedge in his hand, a good golfer should be aiming at the middle pf the green.   And there are other times (and circumstances and pin placements) when an average golfer's best chance at par is a punched 3 iron aimed at the pin that lands short of the green and rolls up close.

Peter

[JESII]

Pat,

I'm interested in this topic but before I log in my thoughts I'd like you to further clarify yours. COuld you describe a hole, real or hypothetical, that accomplishes a high degree of incremental punishment to at least three distinct level of golfer? Say a scratch, a 10 and a 20 handicap each with very average (for their overall skill level) ball striking and recovery games. This will help the conversation I believe because I think it's a very vague idea.

[Kalen Braley]

The only feasible way I could see this working is on a par 3, where the tees are set in general that so each level of player will have a "similar" challenge.

For example, Indian Canyon has a very short par 3 with a small green that is 90 yards for the women, 110 from the whites and 130'ish from the blues.  This to me seems the closest one could do to accomplish this.

On a par 4 or a par 5 where you have previous shots, I don't see any way or method where this could be accomplished.

[Kevin Lynch]

This is almost a Peter Kostis-type argument, aimed at 1% of 1%...

If the shorter hitter cannot avail himself of the carom off the hill or the kick off the downslope, not only is he coming in with the usual greater amount of club, but his disadvantage is compounded. Are we then saying that such a short hitter should lay up and come in with a pitch? Are we saying that such a short hitter should move up a tee deck or two to then come in with Patrick's optimal club selection?

I disagree that this argument is contingent upon long-hitter vs. short hitter.  I think Patrick is essentially using a "all other things held equal" position (i.e. shouldn't the punishment for missing a green with a shorter club be greater than missing a green which generally demands a longer club?)

Whether you're a long hitter vs. short hitter,really doesn't matter.  For a long hitter, Pat's question is whether the hazards should be more severe in wedge vs 7 iron.  For the short hitter, the question may be 8 iron vs 5 iron, but the same principle applies.

I don't think Patrick was trying to say there is an"optimal club" for a given hole.  Rather, he's just asking whether the green surrounds on a 370 yard Par 4 should be more severe than a 420 yard Par 4.


You asked - "Why punish the shorter hitter, who will come in with 2-6 clubs more than the longer poke?"  You could flip that sentiment around.  Why not reward the longer hitter, who will have an advantage of handling a well-defended green?  

Also, you don't necessarily have to make the challenges near the greens rely solely on an aerial approach (you asked, "does that mean the shorter hitter should lay up?")  If a course repeatedly demands forced carries to navigate greenside hazards, it wouldn't be to my liking.

Of course, as Jeff & Jeff both mentioned, this "incremental punishment" principle makes sense, but shouldn't be imposed on every hole.

[Kevin Lynch]

How does an architect make a green of proper challenge for me with a seven, when long-hitting Mac is coming in with a wedge? I don't believe that a green can morph to accommodate each individual golfer.

Of course it can, Ron.  William Harries has 18 greens at Elma Meadows that accommodate everyone from the 20 year-old bomber to the 200-yard Drive Seniors.  Of course, I don't think those open-front, flat ovals are what Pat has in mind.

But again, your question seems to ask how can you get a similar challenge for your 7 iron vs. Mac's Wedge?  The answer is, it can't and it shouldn't.  if Mac developed the skill to find the fairway 20-30 yards ahead of you, good for him.  His reward is hitting wedge instead of a 7 to the same green you are.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

I think this is a great point, and a key defendant of Short par 3's.  Take Merion (East) #13 for example... it's only a PW (maybe a 9I) for almost everybody, but it's absolute death if you miss that green... an up and down par is a miracle IMHO.

We had the same situation here at Olympic (Lake) w/ #8, but alas... it's only a memory now.

[Kevin Lynch]

Given that the greens are approximately the same size, shouldn't the golfer be punished more for missing a green with a short club versus longer clubs ?

Shouldn't the adjacent hazards/bunkers be far more penal when a wedge is the intended club of choice, versus a fairway wood ?

Pat,

I find that this principle is ignored when I see Golf Courses change a hole from a risk-reward Par 5 to an OTT Par 4.

In my area, I have two specific examples, both in the upper 400 yard range.  Both holes were reachable in 2, but the greens were defended in a way that made it a high risk proposition.

In one case, Out-of-Bounds is just 10 yards left of the green (and slopes towards it as well), with a front left bunker.  When the hole was a Par 5, you knew the high risk trying to get home in two.  For someone playing in regulation, the OB certainly isn't ominous.  But the green wasn't a complete pushover, either.  From the lay-up area, the green is elevated, so you can't see the surface (and the OB is still there if you yank a wedge).  The green nicely fit the balance of defending a short Par 5.

However, one year, the course decided to move the tees up 10 yards and call it a 460 yard Par 4.  With a fairway wood in your hand, the green definitely doesn't match the expected "regulation" shot demanded, especially when the surrounds are more ominous than most other holes you've approached with 7 or 8 irons.

In the other instance, the evolution was essentially the same (move the tees up 10 yards and call it a Par 4).  In that case, the green had a fronting creek and usually required your second shot from an uneven lie (given the overall slope of the land, the ball was usually below your feet).  Again, the risks appropriately defended a short Par 5, as you had to fight the creek and stance to get home in 2.  But, as a "regulation" shot on a Par 4, the green surrounds don't match.


I understand converting a "pushover" Par 5 into a Par 4, usually because the green is too easy to attack and doesn't provide a challenge for the wedge approach.  That would seem to fit in with your incremental punishment principle, but the above two examples do not.

[Tim Nugent]

Like all things in the golf design world, this is just one of many variables that should be contemplated but I find it amusing when someone tries to boil down it down to one premise.  If you want cookbook design, go play the 1960-70's era courses. That said, I do believe it is something that should be taken into account.  In some instances, the best way for a short player to achieve Par is to lay up and one putt. Where is it written that everything must be reachable by everyone in regulation? Besides, what is "regulation" besides just some statistical abstract?  Also, if a short hitter is having a problem due to his length, shouldn't he move to tees that work and check his macho ego at the 1st tee?  The problem is with the guys who can't hit it 200 yds but still want it like it was when they were 20.

Jeff, if a 7 iron = 7'deep, how many feet in a wedge?  10?,  what if it's a 56 vs a 60? is there a wedge formula - like 9+ 1^1+d where d = the degree of wedge?  (I know how you like to formulate your designs) 

[Jason Topp]

I think the better way to approach this issue is whether the placement and nature of the hazards is such that is forces an interesting decision. 

Severe hazards with a tight target can force an interesting decision on a long shot - 18 at Pebble Beach, the Road Hole

Relatively benign hazards with a ton of bailout room can create interest on a pitch - 11 at Wildhorse, 18 at The Old Course

 

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Have you been hanging out with Rees again?

[Adam Clayman]

I'm with Sully and believe Pat's too vague.
Otherwise my thoughts are ;

Punishment? What punishment? Should the demands placed on missing short, left, right, or, long, be the same regardless of the club used to get there? If you miss on the short side, whether it's from 50 or 250, your next shot's demand is high. If you miss to the wide side, your next shot might be easier to execute because there's more room to work with. Unless of course your game is erratic, and, you have the same probabilities of screwing up the easy shot, as you do, pulling off the difficult up and down. Golf's counter intuitive nature should not be as formulaic as Pat's vague post implies.

[JNC Lyon]

Given that the greens are approximately the same size, shouldn't the golfer be punished more for missing a green with a short club versus longer clubs ?

Shouldn't the adjacent hazards/bunkers be far more penal when a wedge is the intended club of choice, versus a fairway wood ?

I don't think this is true at all, and it reflects more of a penal mindset toward golf course architect than a strategic one.  One example I was just discussing with Kyle Harris is 15 at Lederach.  15 is a long par four with only one bunker, which is a beautiful giant just short of the green.  The hazard makes the long second shot very difficult, and it is an extremely penal bunker.  Is the bunker too penal for a hole of this length?  Quite the contrary.  The presence of this bunker presents the golfer with a distinct choice: should I layup short, or risk a long second shot into the green?  The bunker is perfectly placed and penal enough to give weight to that decision.

If this bunker were located on a short par four, it would not be nearly as effective.  The golfer would have no choice on the second shot: he would simply carry his shot over the bunker and not think twice about the bunker.  The bunker would penalize rather than creating decisions.

In this way, subscribing to a theory of "incremental punishment" will cause the golfer/architect to ignore strategy and focus on penalty.

[David Lott]

Perhaps. But the exceptions to the rule (17 @ St. Andrews Old) are some of the more amazing holes. But cf. 18, where the second can be a chip but it's still not easy depending on where the pin is. Follow the rule but break the rule sometimes to get something special.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I'm interested in this topic but before I log in my thoughts I'd like you to further clarify yours. COuld you describe a hole, real or hypothetical, that accomplishes a high degree of incremental punishment to at least three distinct level of golfer? Say a scratch, a 10 and a 20 handicap each with very average (for their overall skill level) ball striking and recovery games. This will help the conversation I believe because I think it's a very vague idea.

Jim,

The 12th at Westhampton might be a good hole to consider.

But, before considering any given hole, the scratch, 10 and 20 won't be playing from the same tees

In general, yardage on a given hole at most local clubs generally reflects a similar challenge.
It's unusual for a 310 yard hole from the members tees to be a 460 yard hole from the championship tees.
At # 12 at Westhampton, it's a relatively short hole.  It was lengthened considerably years ago, but, the use of the aded length was generally rejected and the hole varies from a short to a medicum length par 3 with an elevated greeen well portected by surounding bunkers and good winds

As to Trick's question, almost any short par 4 provides for limited choices in selectingr the approach club.

# 1 and # 2 at NGLA or # 1 at GCGC might be good examples.

All holes are barely over 300 yards.