Can an architect build an "Option-filled hole" for ALL golfers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's the way Pat looks at a multi-optional hole like that Parsinen concept hole.

No, here's the way you misinterpret how I think.  This is your version, not mine

The long hitter hits a drive left down a turbo boost to 70-80 yards closer to the green but inherits a shallow and somewhat blind green approach over some junk to the green. So in Pat's mind that's just RISK and consequently that option isn't a 'viable option'.

Where's the reward beyond distance in the absolute ?

For the shorter hitter (persumably higher handicapper) who has to lay back in the 100+ yard wide fairway to the more accomodating green opening but much longer approach that's not a 'viable option' either because the shorter player can't hit that approach shot!

If he can't hit the green, then that option doesn't exist for him by your own words

So, just as George Pazin suspected Pat thinks this hole has NO OPTIONS--basically in Pat's mind there's no 'viable' way to play this hole for the handicapper and for the scratch player there's no way he'd want to play the hole!  

I've arranged for the shock treatments for you at Baltusrol, on saturday afternoon, February 28th, while everyone else is having lunch.

You'll feel much better, and those in attendance may finally get a chance to understand you later in the day.

P.S.  Please wear rubber soled shoes  

[THuckaby2]

To Dan G:

My bother (hack lefty with a slice) went left on Rustic #3.

Sure it's not the best example, but what the hell, it's close!

Now back to the more intelligent argument here.

TH

[TEPaul]

"No, here's the way you misinterpret how I think."

Pat:

Can you tell us all, perchance, why just about every contributor to this website misinterprets how you think just about all the time? Do you think perhaps it has anything to do with the things you say and the way you say them?      

[George Pazin]

Put me down for shock treatments, too - I'd love to finally be able to understand Pat's posts!!

[TEPaul]

"Where's the reward beyond distance in the absolute?"

Oh my, aren't we getting sophisticated?! Distance in the absolute, huh? The reward is distance in the ABSOLUTE (about 70-80 yards of it) but somewhat moderated by a next shot that demands more distance accuracy (but allows more direction latitude) than the far long approach option!

Can't handle those complex problems and solutions Pat? Tell you what--if you come across a hole like this why don't you just mark down an X or concede it in match play and just proceed to the next teeing ground?!  

[Joe Hancock]

I'm not capable of understanding Pat's posts....I really don't know enough yet.

On the original topic, though, I feel like the most basic answer to the question is yes, an architect CAN build an "otion-filled hole" for ALL golfers.

Just don't expect their scores to be similar!

Joe

[TEPaul]

"If he can't hit the green, then that option doesn't exist for him by your own words."

Those are my words only because I'm mimicing your words and your thoughts. Those sure aren't my thoughts--they're yours and nobody believes them anyway! But apparently that's never stopped you from continuing to maintain them.  

[TEPaul]

"I've arranged for the shock treatments for you at Baltusrol, on saturday afternoon, February 28th, while everyone else is having lunch.
You'll feel much better, and those in attendance may finally get a chance to understand you later in the day.
P.S.  Please wear rubber soled shoes"

Uh, huh, whatever! We're all more than happy to play along with your madness---it's quite cute actually!    

[DMoriarty]

Dan I think that your question may predetermine your answer.  "Same risk-reward options?"  Won't the probability and magnitude of the risk (and the reward) always differ for different skill levels?  

But if your question is whether a golf hole can require golfers to strategically negotiate the same set of features, then the answer, I think, is yes.  

For you and me, RC 7 is definitely a lay-up, but there are also reasons to hit it on one side of the lay-up fairway or the other.  For example you can get much closer to the green if you hit to the left side, but hit more down the length of the green if you hit it right side.   Recently I played with a fairly high handicap couple and they both hit to the right fairway on their second shot.

How about RC 4?  Or RC 13?  Or 9? Or perhaps I dont understand your question.  
__________

Barney, there are plenty of holes with no options, or at least no interesting options.  That is what I am always complaining about.  

[Dan Grossman]

Jaka B - My question / comment was not about equipment, but rather the difference in ability levels in the people that play the game at different times.  Due to the popularity of golf currently, I would wager that the difference between good golfers and bad golfers are at an all time high.

Pat - I know it wasn't the quesiton which I orginally posted, but it seemed that the overwhelming answer was No.  So, I was trying to think if there was a larger connection to architecture.

[Dan Grossman]

David - That was what I was really getting at.  I started thinking about what holes consider "Great" Risk/Reward holes and how it is really dependent on the golfer.  

I posed the question because I was thinking about my friend who hits the ball a lot longer than me, but scores about the same.  In my opinion, we are both at the same skill level.  However, while we are at the same skill level, we both have very different skills.  As a result, the holes we like and find challenging tend to be different.

[DMoriarty]

Tom - I'm not sure that #3 at RC is a good example.  I've never seen anyone INTENTIONALLY go left.  I'm sure the Davids will disagree with me, but I think the best play on that hole, regardless of how far you hit it, is to try to hit a right to left shot with your driver and stay out of the center bunker.  

Lynn's new regular play is left.  I think I've seen him tapping in for birdie a few times since he started going over there.  But it certainly doesnt fit my eye.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JHancock,

I'm not capable of understanding Pat's posts....I really don't know enough yet.

On the original topic, though, I feel like the most basic answer to the question is yes, an architect CAN build an "otion-filled hole" for ALL golfers.

But, that wasn't Dan's question.
Dan asked, can an architect build/design a hole that provides the SAME risk/reward to ALL levels of golfers ?
And, that's a big distinction.

Just don't expect their scores to be similar!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"If he can't hit the green, then that option doesn't exist for him by your own words."

Those are my words only because I'm mimicing your words and your thoughts. Those sure aren't my thoughts--they're yours and nobody believes them anyway! But apparently that's never stopped you from continuing to maintain them.  

NOW I KNOW HOW COLUMBUS FELT,
WHEN EVERYONE TOLD HIM THE WORLD WAS FLAT.

WELL, IT MAY TAKE YOU SOME TIME, BUT YOU'LL COME AROUND TO MY WAY OF THINKING SOONER THEN YOU THINK
[/B]

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

The words "same" and "all" do make a big distinction, but it also makes the question preposterous. There's no way a hole with few or several options can accomodate "all" skill levels.

A hole with diagonal cross bunkering is played by 3 golfers of equal length, handicap and overall skill. One is a drawer of the ball, another hits it predominantly straight while the third hits a fade every time. Does the hazard offer the same risk/ reward even though the three golfers are "equal"?

This question either has to be answered very elementarily, or quite preposterously, best I can figure.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

JHancock,

That's why I originally suggested the term "relative" challenge.
I think we're on the same page, just don't tell TEPaul.

[ForkaB]

One way to do this is to build the hole on a site where there is likely to be a significantly changeable amount of wind!

I came across a quote from Darwin the other day regarding Bobby Jones and the St. Andrews Open of 1927:

"...he had devised some three different ways of playing the Long Hole (14) in accordance with the wind."

This snippet seems to strongly imply that Jones had one and only one way of playing the 14th in any particular wind condition, but that his strategy changed (possibly radically)depending on the wind.  It would seem to me that this would be true for any level of player, although--again--with fewer degrees of freedom for the lesser player.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Interesting logic…isn't that like saying the Kama Sutra doesn’t provide choice because you can only perform one position at a time.

One of the more famous attempts to provide options for all levels of play was MacKenzie’s prize winning design for Lido.

In my mind the perfect all encompassing hole would have great width and no hazards. The hole would be defined by contours—some of them fairly severe—in conjunction with a green which a distinct orientation (and related contours).

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said;

"NOW I KNOW HOW COLUMBUS FELT,
WHEN EVERYONE TOLD HIM THE WORLD WAS FLAT.'

Pat:

You pretty much got me with that one! I just don't know how to respond any longer now that you consider yourself the Christopher Columbus of golf architecture!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

It appears you've just now discovered the part wind plays in a hole's options. Congratulations! Would you like to revise what you said on the other thread about the options of the TOC's #14 or would you perhaps like to take issue with Bernard Darwin and that quote of his you just cited?

Even Max Behr mentioned the wind along with the ground (including hazards) should be considered inseparable! This is only a small part of what Behr had to say about the part the wind plays (which would include its influence on options)--this from his essay entitled "The Ball Problem".

"But it is only by forcing the player to again consider the resistance of the air to the ball that we can acquire a variable hazard calling upon him at all times for variety of stroke to cover the distances."

Now, Rich---what could be clearer or more succinct than that?

[Dan Kelly]

I suppose the 13th would qualify, but I have seen players, including my 15 year old son hit the green on the fly.  Counting hitting the left fairway, right fairway, running up the little ramp and flying it, that is four options which are equally enticing for different reasons, regardless of your shot pattern.  I guess that's why its one of my better holes!

Jeff -- You will be pleased to know that the Minnesota Golf Association chose Quarry 13 to adorn the front of its inaugural Minnesota Golf Association Membership Card.

You should call and get one: 800-642-4405.

Dan

[ForkaB]

Tom P

Norm Crosby or Forster Brooks could be clearer than that!

Tom MacW

Not really.......