The strategy thread, where we always talk about options makes me think of another hypothetical example of a hole.

Imagine a 380 yard straight away par 4, just beyond driving limits, for now, for most!  The green is an elevated, tiny fortress green, requiring high spin to hold.

The tee shot offers three options -

Play a power drive to 350 yards, to level areas just short of the green, but with half a lob wedge that can't give you full spin.

Play a full drive to 240-300 yards, leaving a full wedge for maximum spin.  However, all fairway and rough areas in this range have great contour, assuring a funky lie which could cause the shot to "squirt".

Play a layup to 230 or less, leaving 150 yards or more, a "too long" mid iron approach for the tiny green, but providing a level lie.

As you can see, none of these options leaves an ideal shot to the green.  Is architecture that leaves no ideal approach shots good or bad?

Would adding a small patch of level fairway in the 240-300 range, allowing a player of great accuracy a chance at a short iron from a level lie in the preferred landing zone approach distance be required to make this a better hole?

Or should this type of hole never be built, period?

Sounds like an interesting hole.

How about making the fairway pretty wide to almost guarantee everone hits it and have the flat fairway area stop at 270 yards. The tee shot is all about distance control instead of accuracy and the hole is a short iron and putting test.

Make the hole play down wind.

This encourages those in love with distance to hit driver off the tee.

 Past 270 yards off the tee, dig out a hollow creating downhill/uphill  lies and shots from below the level of the green plus increased difficulty with distance perception, shot trajectory and distance control on all approaches.

These features would force very accurate distance control off the tee for a flat lie and exact clubbing to the green.

Oh, and create a fairway length mowed chipping area beyond the green like you did at the 8th on The Quarry.

Is this too tough a hole?

John Kendall

Jeff,
If the green is as difficult to hit and hold from 150 and out as it seems, then won't play be excessively slow?  The better golfers will be waiting for the lesser ones to get on the green so they can whale away for option 1, while the lessers are trying to find a way on.  As constituted, should this hole be only in the interior of a side (not one of the first three holes, for instance) and would it be a better private course hole?

Jim,

Yes, diminishing the return and value of length by gradually increasing the fairway contour seems a better way to go to me, as it adds a more multi dimensional tee shot.....

John,

See above.  If we allow a drive to right at 270, then distance control would be enhanced, but I like the gradual diminishing or returns on length, not an all or nothing starting point.  In reality, would a 110 yard shot be enough of an advantage over a 120 yard shot?  It would be easy to lay up well short, although the downwind scenario would carry a slightly "shaved to close" tee shot into the controured area.

Yes, being downwind would certainly also make the temptation to go for the shorter approach more tempting, given the reduced backspin.  And I considered adding fairway well wide and behind the green, in anticipation of the day a few years from now when driving over the green will be an option! I also said "Fotrress green" anticipating  lack of vision as you near the green.  Good ideas both....

Rich,

Wide fairways?  Always!

Is it "fair" to have the high skill option, i.e. a level pad in the drive zone at something just less than full drive?  I suppose at, say 250 yards, its only going to be "perfect distance" for a small % of golfers to just hit a full tee shot.....

AG,

At 380, with a fortress green, I am hoping hypothetically that no one will drive the hole.  Perhaps I am in fantasy land again.....Yes, it is impractical on any course where speed of play is the main design goal, and any short hole with potential to slow down play is best used later in each nine.....

Thanks for the responses.  I have posted hypotheticals before, and gotten very few......but I enjoy that kind of theory discussion way more than reviewing courses, etc.

Is architecture that leaves no ideal approach shots good or bad?

Seems to me it could be either good or bad.

This hole sounds good.

Only thing I'd recommend (on this hole; on virtually every hole): some sort of ground-game approach option, to make the hole playable for most women and kids and high-handicappers.

The low-handicappers will never avail themselves of that option, anyway.

Jeff

This, to me, sounds like a weak hole. Not a terrible hole; just weak. For this reason: not because it is unfair; but because there seems to be no one option better than the other. The architecturally intelligent, skilled, golfer stands on the tee and might say "So what? Doesn't matter where I hit it. There is no advantage." Kinda like taking a multiple choice test where there is no one right answer. Just a bunch of choices that aren't wrong, just not necessarily right.

Andy,

Just because all the options look the same to you, doesn't mean they do for others.  I like that kind of hole where you don't really see one good way to go and you just have to decide your strategy based on how your swing is that day, what the conditions are like, etc.

A weak hole to me is one where there is one and only one true way to play it, so you play it the same way every time.  Talk about boring!

I say go for it, Jeff.  I say the fuzzier you can make the decision making process from the tee, the better.  And there's no reason people should feel they 'deserve' a birdie attempt as a reward for two good shots on a 380 yard hole (or on any hole)  The short par 4 where you can only birdie it with some luck so you really need to play it for par/avoiding bogey is the kind of thing that messes with some golfer's minds.