Shot Value and the game of Golf

[Mark_Fine]

Tom H,
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.  My feeling from doing slope ratings is that they are very subjective.  Of course the guide tries to make them "objective" but from what I have seen and been involved with, the slope that you end up with is very much a function of the group of raters you used.  

You've played a lot of courses, how many times do you shake your head and say how on earth did someone come up with this slope rating for this course!  

Mark

[Matt_Ward]

Shot values means to me the ability to command the greatest range of skill with all the clubs and the ability to "work the ball" (from left-to-right and right-to-left along with ability to hit it high and low when called upon.

Courses that require the fullest range of the above have high shot value demands and in my mind are worthy to seek out. Golf is ultimately about putting shots together throughout the course of a round. The great ones make you play the fullest range of them time after time.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- Funny you used the term demands, because thats what I think I call it, shot demands. The only semantical difference I would change in what you said above is that a great course allows, not 'makes', the golfer hit the shot of thier choosing. I guess I know this because I rarely play any hole twice the same way or from the same spot.

[bmulva]

hows this for a definition,
shot values: the characteristics of a shot(and its target?)
for example, its distance,fade or draw,lie, ideal trajectory, forced carries
Billy

[A_Clay_Man]

All variables are at work when defineing the term. One thought comes to my mind and that is that the shot value, when the wind is blowing, is always much greater, for me. Greater fun, greater in challenge and greater in figuring. My best i.e. is the greatest second shot in golf. In benign conditions it's still the greatest second shot in golf. But, throw in the wind from any direction and the value of that shot demand has increased significantly as does the satisfaction upon perfect execution.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam and Matt have quite different view!    I tend to agree with Matt's view here.  A static golf course cannot, of course, make any one hit any particular shot, but it can be arranged over the course of 18 holes to strongly favor different shots at different junctures.  Adam seems to favor a more wide open canvass where many - or in some cases - any shot may suffice if played correctly.

There is strategy and there is demand.  

Certainly having two options on a shot allows a golfer to create a strategy.  

Demand relates to margin for error, penalty for missing the target.  

But shotmaking demand - ie, shot values - combines both, and must mean that:

On any given shot, one type of shot allows the golfer to get closer to the pin, for instance, rather than having to aim at the middle of the green, and

Throughout the round, there is a variety of shots heavily favored, to a degree that the golfer who has a command of "all the shots" should normally prevail in a series of matches against an opponent who doesn't.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with allowing two nearly equal avenues to play a hole depending on game strengths every once in a while.  However, I suspect that most competitive golfers would side with Matt, and say the a course as described above would have strong shot values.

Here is my second defintion of shot values -

I go play Cowboys Golf Club, paying the Greens Fee of $135.  I shoot 135.  Therefore the shot value is $1 per shot......

[Mark_Fine]

How about the "shot values" of a bunker shot from a 6 foot deep bunker cut into the slope of a green vs. a 3 foot deep bunker 20 feet away from a green,...or a pitch shot from a grass swale with rough vs. one played on closely mowed turf,...  The shots to be evaluated go on and on.

[A_Clay_Man]

Thats a good one Jeff. I must get my shot value down to about $.02 over the year. Yes, I would have a different definition than Matt. I don' think we play the same game. Mine is rarely critical of the course, just my own play. I am always amazed at how the Better golfer can be a real bellyacher when they miss a spot by a foot and blame the design. (Matt, I'm not saying thats you)

Since so many want to design for us masses, why do they bother to listen to the better golfer?  

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

A semantic alternative is acceptable.

Just remember this -- Black Mesa is high octane shot value stuff in my mind!

P.S. Shot values are the ultimate barometer in my mind in determining if a course really reaches the zenith of greatness. Golf is more than just a view and being a test to local area member's. The great courses have the wherewithal to test the finest and the shot values they possess are timeless. Few courses of this caliber / pedigree truly exist though.

[TEPaul]

How do some of you "shot value" definers out there feel a course's "shot values" are effected or influenced when a really good golf course's architecture has a truly "ideal tournament maintenance meld" applied to it. Nothing over the top here just really get the "ideal maintenance meld" going. My experience is courses like a Pine Valley's "shot value" rises almost exponentially when that "Ideal MM" is applied. The Philly Open there in 2002 was excellent evdence and proof of that, in my opinion! Golfers playing a course like that in those conditions are almost seeing another golf course and another dimension of PV "shot value" if you're looking at high shot value as a barometer of something that can influence scoring exponentially!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- It would then be true for a courses shot value to change daily depending on the conditions.

Behr mentions good and bad shots, which makes me think the shot value is not the courses as much as it's yours against the conditions of the course on that day at that moment from that place or places.

[TEPaul]

"Tom- It would then be true for a courses shot value to change daily depending on the conditions."

Adam:

Definitely!

You said;

"Behr mentions good and bad shots, which makes me think the shot value is not the courses as much as it's yours against the conditions of the course on that day at that moment from that place or places."

You must understand, Adam, that Max looked at golf and golf architecture in a very dynamic "whole world" sense ("whole world" very much includes the participation of Nature in the endeavor). Static, fixed, and man-made values in the endeavor or its playing fields created nothing much more than another definable "game" where all the game's values were predictable. This, in theory, in the "game mind" of man (architect, rules makers etc) was intended to isolate and highlight the game player's skill alone as everything else was defined, fixed and predictable.

Behr believed that golf and its architecture should not be such a "man-made" game (the "game-mind" of man) and that it should be a sport. A real sport manages somehow to maintain nature's balance and participation in the recreational endeavor. Nature is unpredictable, unfixed, possibly unfair in selective cases and so it's of added interest when man (a golfer) does battle with both his opponent in golf and also the vagaries of Nature which his opponent must also endure in what one might assume to be in equal measure, over time. But if that appears not to be the case from time to time in the mind of the "sportsman golfer"--well, such is life and all a sportsman should say or think is "Oh f..." such is my misfortune in the spectrum of Nature's little vagaries as they apply to sport!

Fixed man-assigned values were not good for golf or golf architecture to Max. The free flowing and unpredicatable values and vagaries of Nature needed to be considered and preserved as part of the equation of golf.

The same would be true to Max when one considers a course's or a hole or shot's individual "shot values" at any particular time. Max would expect a true sportsman golfer to feel the value of the wind on his shot at hand in the little exact movements of the cow-lick in his hair on top of his pate, or perhaps how the water had worked on that bunker face since he last encountered it.

And if the true sportsman golfer's opponent placed his shot next to the pin and the sportsman golfer buried his own shot up under that bunker lip that the water had slightly altered since he last played, all the sportsman golfer should say and think is "Oh f..." I should have paid closer attention to the wind in my cow-lick and hit a 6 iron instead of a 7 iron as Nature's flow on that bunker face was trying to tell my cow-lick and as my cow-lick was trying to tell me!

But then, when on the next tee after the sportsman golfer had unpredictably holed his bunker shot for a two from up under that bunker lip and his opponent had somehow missed his 3 foot putt for only a par all would be right with the world again to the sportsman golfer!

And so it goes with the sportsman golfer....until the next shot against his opponent as they both recreate and do battle against each other and together against Nature and the ever changing shot values in her space/time continuum.

[THuckaby2]

Tom H,
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other.  My feeling from doing slope ratings is that they are very subjective.  Of course the guide tries to make them "objective" but from what I have seen and been involved with, the slope that you end up with is very much a function of the group of raters you used.  

You've played a lot of courses, how many times do you shake your head and say how on earth did someone come up with this slope rating for this course!  

Mark

Mark - maybe one or the other of us (likely me) is misusing the word "subjective."  I find VERY little of my own personal judgment goes into doing course ratings (which then get used to determine slope).  It's basically measure how far to this, how far from this, what's our target rating, then everything else falls into place, using the tables in the manual...  there is so little personal judgment that goes into it that yes, I find your statement dangerous... People really shouldn't have the idea that a group of raters goes out and just decides what the slope should be based on how they play and what their experiences are, which seems to be what you are saying... and couldn't be farther from the truth.  Or at least that's the case here in the NCGA.  We work hard to make certain that what you say doesn't occur... It doesn't matter who the raters are, the results should come out the same no matter who does it.  And I feel confident we succeed in this.

"how many times do you shake your head and say how on earth did someone come up with this slope rating for this course!"

Before I starting doing them myself?  Lots of times.  Now that I've done a bunch and know how the system works?  Never.  Oh, some seem weird, but I can usually figure out WHY they are so pretty easily... and then they make sense.

TH  

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom Paul- I was going to suggest you try to put Behr's words into modern day dummy speak. But after that post, I think you are harder to understand than he is. But thanks.

 

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I'm not interested in putting Max's words into modern day 'dummy-speak'. Max's words and thoughts were far too colorful and descriptive to be corrupted like that. However, the words, or at least some very analagous thoughts to what Max would've said is what I wrote above about what Max would've said about shot values. The first post was about 98% Max's own words from something else into which I merely transposed a few thing like "shot values", "natural" etc. The unique words of "nursegirl" and "Mrs Grundy bunkers" actually are Max's words. But I'm sure you've guessed by now that as far as I know I don't think Max ever had a thing to say about "shot values". Ideas like that were far too restrictive, "game-mindish" and ridiculous to a guy like Max. Max was into natural things like how the wind in the cow-lick of a golfer's hair made his "sports-mind" work and how all those things revolving around golf combined to effect his soul and how they could all contributed to the longterm interest, health and survival of the sport of golf!  

[A_Clay_Man]

Yes his words are as close to an Ayn Rand as I have read in a while. But I was under the impression that if someone could capture the context and perhaps some of the poetry, convincing modern man that the golf they have come to know is for sheit, it would be worthwhile. No doubt, dumbing down the words isn't needed for the educated, but if Joe six pack is ever going to get into the eesence, he'd be greatly assisted with a translation.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

In all seriousnes I do realize that Max Behr with his labyrinthian language and mind-boggling images and analogies was a difficult guy to understand. But once you spend the time to understand him and to delve beneath all that, there truly is a philosophical world there that's extraordinary to contemplate.

I don't blame a guy like Rich Goodale when he pokes fun at Max. I realize a middle-school existentialist mind like Rich's with very limited brain-width regarding the subjects Max deals with can do little else. Rich should just stick with a guy like Arnold Hautlain as his goal to understand in golf architecture.

Here's a simple analogy to understand where Max was coming from. Max was a sportsman in golf and architecture not just a game player or game creator. Imagine the analogy of fishing to golf in Max's mind. Max believed a sportsman needed only equipment to just barely sustain his skill in his recreational endeavour vs Nature and nothing more.

In the area of balls and equipment in golf Max believed the regulatory bodies should regulate I&B to just sustain skill and not go beyond that. Max would've thought it best and most interesting to try to catch a 1000 lbs tarpon on 10 lbs test. And Max would've been only a fly fisherman not a spinning reel fisherman. Max didn't feel the regulatory bodies should let the true sportsman try to catch a 10oz minnow with 1000 lbs test. If Max could see the game today that's probably where he'd figure it had gotten itself to.

And on golf architecture Max felt the architect should produce golf architecture that used nature and if it needed more than that then the architect should feel constained to at least make what he created look like nature. In an analogy to fishing and golf architecture Max would've enjoyed polling his little skiff with his 10 lbs test flyrod against a 1000 lbs tarpon somewhere out in the great natural ocean instead of launching his skiff with an engine attached to it complete with 1000 lbs test to catch a 10 oz minnow in an Olympic sized man-made swimming pool!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom - I guess there's a correlation to the lack of respect society has been experiencing, since the advent of the telephone, and the lack of respect for the prey, since the first stockyard.

I don't condone it but I find the modern lazy golfer really wants thing's easier. Opposed to the sportsman who respects and values the life he's attempting to snuff-out. The sportsman, if stumbling upon, wouldnt kill and would likely help, a wounded prey. Where the modern golfer wants to see everything laid-out in front of him/her with only lateral not-so-nasty Mrs. Grundys framing his middle.

[zwalford]

I guess my understanding of shot value was very basic and general.  I thank everyone for there input because I now have a better understanding of what shot value actually is.