News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Pat_Mucci

Penalizing the marginal shot
« on: November 20, 2005, 09:39:17 AM »
Some golf courses have a knack for penalizing the marginal shot.

It seems that the design of Seminole accentuates this philosophy.

Poorly thought out shots, poorly executed shots and shots not quite hit on the money suffer the most.

The combination of the wind and the green complexes feed mis-hit shots into bunkers, closely mown areas or rough, leaving dicey recoverery shots.

I've noticed this feature at NGLA and other classic courses.

I can see how today's golfer could deem these features and their interaction with the golf ball, unfair, but, they create great interest by heightening tension, relief and dispair.  They force the golfer to engage in a higher level of course management, while increasing the pressure on their game.

Why don't we see more of these features in modern golf courses ?  Is it a form of surrender, architecturally catering to the lowest common denominator ?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #1 on: November 20, 2005, 12:05:57 PM »
Pat,

Again, a great topic! Better than that ratings gunk.....

Is it the lowest common denominator, or the influence of the highest level of play, ie PGA Tour and similar, who believe in eliminating luck, "proportional punishment" and the like?  I think it is elements of both, really.

I hear a lot about the most frustrating shot from average golfers being one that attains the green, but somehow spins off.  My mentors did teach me to contour greens in a concave fashion, and I still do that mostly today, figuring golf is tough enough for most players.  Of course, the majority of my commissions are public courses, and only a few have asked me to do championship caliber courses, but even when I do, I doubt good players like the idea of a "well struck" shot backing off the green because a contour takes it off, etc.

NGLA and even the other Top 50 courses, plus a few others are specifically designed as stout and unique tests of golf, whereas others are designed for every day play.  I am sure those features are used more often - then and now - by designers commissioned to design such courses.  I think the relative number of "Stout Tests" vs. "Golf Factories" is lower today than in the golden age, reducing the use of the features you mention via "form follows function" but they still exist in design, I am sure.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

ForkaB

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2005, 12:29:15 PM »
Good topic, Pat

In my view, penalties are best thought of in fractional rather than either/or terms.  In some cases (i.e. a pot bunker which requires a pitch out sideways, various water hazards, etc.) the fraction may be 1/1 or larger, but it is still a fraction.

I think it is interesting that on a lot of great courses, the marginal but bold shot will be penalized MORE than the bail out.  For example, hitting a solid drive that just catches the last bunker on the 12th at TOC will cost a full shot, whereas a drive which you ease off slightly to the right will just cost you a relatively small fraction.  Same with the 2nd at Pacific Dunes and the 1st at NGLA, etc.etc.

Interesting, too that all these I can think of now involved centerline hazards....

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2005, 01:06:54 PM »
What do you consider the difference between a course, or hole that penalized the marginal shot, and a course, or hole that is considered "penal" design?

If they are not the same, can not many golf holes be made to penalize the marginal shot, just by cutting the pin in the most dangerous or inaccesible location?
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #4 on: November 20, 2005, 02:57:52 PM »

What do you consider the difference between a course, or hole that penalized the marginal shot, and a course, or hole that is considered "penal" design?

In my mind, penal courses are more .... pass or fail tests, with no gradation in between.

Yesterday, several shots, not quite stout enough, with back spin and aided by the wind (the shots were into the wind), rolled back off the green into bunkers, rough or the fairway.

Other shots managed to remain on the green following moments of doubt where heart rates were briefly excellerated
to dangerous levels.

Some were tantalizingly close to being good shots
[/color]

If they are not the same, can not many golf holes be made to penalize the marginal shot, just by cutting the pin in the most dangerous or inaccesible location?

No, because locating the hole near a dangerous position usually leaves a vast expanse of green available for the safe or bail out shot.

At Seminole, from a practical standpoint, due to the architecture that penalizes marginal shots, the greens are 1/2 to 1/3 their actual size.

The front hole locations at Seminole are amongst the most difficult anywhere, and shots hit long face treacherous putts if the golfer is fortunate enough to hit the green.
[/color]
« Last Edit: November 20, 2005, 02:58:19 PM by Pat_Mucci »

Andy Troeger

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2005, 04:25:02 PM »
This is an interesting question. I don't mind the situation Pat mentions (shots that are tantilizingly close to being good but end up not) when I'm watching the pros play on TV and THEIR marginal shots get penalized.

However I personally have always been someone who likes to live on hitting the edges of fairways and being around the fringe on the green (just because I'm not good enough to be more precise than that). Therefore, to see most of those shots bounding off into bunkers, closely-mowed areas, etc, is very frustrating. That's probably what makes the holes great though.

Pat,
I'm not sure I agree that these situations are not "penal." I think I'm understanding your definition of penal to signify courses where you can find your ball vs not (?), or shots from where there are no recovery.  However, I might argue that a hole where a matter of inches on an approach shot means the difference between a 10 foot putt and a 20 yard pitch from a closely-mown area to be "penal" as well. Its an awfully big difference for a minute difference in the quality of shots. Doesn't that make it a pass/fail situation--either you hit it on the right portion of the green or you don't? It also depends on the difficulty of the recovery shot, in my mind at least.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #6 on: November 20, 2005, 04:53:52 PM »
I believe that this idea has definitely been lost in modern architecture.  Rereading the profile of Crystal Downs, especially regarding the 13th green, the authors say that the green would never be built today, as many would cry unfair.  This rings true to me, as many architects don't want players to think too much about the shot, that greens should ALWAYS accept a full wedge shot, even if they are open in front.  The better idea in golf, in my opinion, is force the player to consider all options of play.  A course which (sometimes severely) penalizes the marginal shot just doesn't suffer fools as much as some lesser courses.

Having played Oak Hill's East Course hundreds of times, I believe this course does an excellent job of smacking down shots that didn't have a good amount of thought put into them.  For example, the tenth hole is a meduim range downhill par four, extremely tight in the LZ.  Any drive that is reckless or isn't hit just right bounds into trouble.  If the player survives this, they are left with a tricky approach across a creek (not in play for most longer hitters, but as someone who is a short hitter, it plays an integral part on my second-shot decision-making) to a green with flanking bunkers, but one that has a wide enough area in front to bounce the ball onto the putting surface.  The green simply makes the hole, a classic Ross surface with a knoll in the middle, throwing shots hit just a smidge too hard to the back rough, and disrupts almost every putt.

After a short but straight drive on this hole, I hit a marginal layup in to the right rough, which is very short at this time of year.  Not bad, right??  My yardage (yes, I do use sprinkler heads) was 105 to the middle, 118 to the back edge.  The pin was in the center of the green, just a bit right of the peak of the knoll.  I assumed the shot would be a full 9-iron, my 100 yardage, accounting for the fact that the wind was helping.  I hit a very solid shot, only I forgot that the ball would jump when I hit it from the shortish rough.  Still, the ball landed just over the top of the knob, throwing it over the green into a lie which was rotten, dead into the grain.  The chip shot was solid enough, but it chugged past the hole and down the slope of the knoll, 30 feet past.  A two putt later, I walked to the 11th tee, cursing my six.

The third and fourth shots that I hit were not bad shots.  In fact, both were very well struck, especially the approach shot.  But looking back on it, it was poor thinking not to use the firm turf in front of the green to bounce the ball onto the green, even with a 9 iron in my hands, and let the knoll feed the ball around the bunker in the front-right portion of green and up close to the hole, bringing about a very good attempt for a four.

Would I like to see more of these types of penalties from an architectural standpoint, ABSOLUTELY!
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #7 on: November 20, 2005, 05:56:27 PM »
Pat,

Rich Goodale mentioned how you could quantify difficulty.  I suggest strokes is a good measure.  A bunker would cause a loss of x.xx strokes, for instance.

I think most of the great championship courses in America have difficult green complexes, where the penalty for missing is relatively severe.  Probably a prerequisite for greatness.

One think we have noticed at Pumpkin Ridge: Sometimes a yard from perfect on a tee shot can be the worst result, because of the bunker lip or awkward stance.

The ideal course would have a grand variety of recovery play, some easy, some difficult, all fun to play.

PS  The world would be a dull place without the occasional wedge shot skipping off the back.

TEPaul

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #8 on: November 20, 2005, 06:24:51 PM »
"The combination of the wind and the green complexes feed mis-hit shots into bunkers, closely mown areas or rough, leaving dicey recoverery shots."

Pat:

That kind of thing at Seminole is probably about half architecture and half maintenance practices at this point. Maybe about fifteen years ago and back Seminole really didn't use some of the maintenance practices they do today that promote that kind of penalizing of the marginal shot. For that matter NGLA and a lot of other courses probably didn't either in that middle era. Gulf Stream had a restoration of sorts in the last ten years or so that promoted that kind of penalizing of marginal shots off greens into bunkers and such and the membership didn't like it and made maintenance change it back.

But that kind of thing is wonderful for thoughtful challenging golf. Unfortunately too many probably label it unfair.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #9 on: November 20, 2005, 07:12:12 PM »
JNC Lyon:  Apparently whoever wrote that profile about Crystal Downs was mistaken.  I built two greens based on the 13th at the Downs ... the fifth at Apache Stronghold and the 3rd at Riverfront.  Then I retired it for the time being, because I didn't want to start repeating myself.

Patrick:  I guess it comes down to your definition of a "marginal" shot.  When you get to the point that average players can't hold the greens and have no place to play safely -- like the 15th green at Augusta National when it's really fast, water in front and a severe back-to-front slope -- shaving the bank in front so a short shot rolls back into the water is a marginal idea at best.

Michael Whitaker

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #10 on: November 20, 2005, 07:56:52 PM »
Pat - Some people think that one of the tests of a GREAT course is if it penalizes missed shots in proportion to the severity of the error. Miss big and you're punished big... but, miss small and you're only punished a little. Proportional.

Some severe courses have no proportionality to their design. On these courses, whether you miss a little or a lot it doesn't matter as every miss is punished the same. I've never played Seminole or NGLA. Is there proportionality to their severity? Should there be?
« Last Edit: November 20, 2005, 07:57:38 PM by Michael Whitaker »
"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."  - Tom Doak (11/20/05)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #11 on: November 20, 2005, 10:08:52 PM »
Michael:

Whatever else I may agree or disagree with Pat about, proportionality is a formula for disaster.

If the bad player is punished severely, he'll quit the game.  If the good player is not challenged to play his best shots, he won't enjoy the game and he won't ever get any better.  Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture.  

If someone tells you that a great course is one that punishes proportionally, that person is a narcissist in love with his own golf.

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #12 on: November 20, 2005, 10:13:18 PM »

Pat,
I'm not sure I agree that these situations are not "penal." I think I'm understanding your definition of penal to signify courses where you can find your ball vs not (?), or shots from where there are no recovery.  

No, those are extreme situations.

To me, penal signifies a severe consequence, but not an impossible recovery.
[/color]

However, I might argue that a hole where a matter of inches on an approach shot means the difference between a 10 foot putt and a 20 yard pitch from a closely-mown area to be "penal" as well.

I don't know of a golf course where inches differentiate success from failure as a pattern.
[/color]

Its an awfully big difference for a minute difference in the quality of shots. Doesn't that make it a pass/fail situation--either you hit it on the right portion of the green or you don't? It also depends on the difficulty of the recovery shot, in my mind at least.

I don't consider an 80-115 yard approach shot to a seemingly benign green as presenting minute differences in the quality of shots.

I think you'd have to be familiar with the greens, surrounds, wind and maintainance practices at Seminole to understand how a relatively easy approach shot can result in a very disappointing outcome.
[/color]

Andy Troeger

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #13 on: November 20, 2005, 10:27:39 PM »
Pat,
  Probably very true, I wasn't so much trying to be specific to Seminole as inquiring as to your more general points.  I agree that I too have not seen a course where inches differerentiate success from failure as a pattern, but even if it occurs once it can be a severe consequence, depending on where the ball actually ends up. That's not necessarily a bad thing in my mind though (although I think it would be if it were a pattern). I agree with your point regarding the 80-115 yard shots.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #14 on: November 20, 2005, 10:38:47 PM »
Pass or fail!?!? 18 holes of forced carries and the like. I don't think that is an accurate characterization of penal design. I think it is a characterization of mindless design.

In essence, it sounds like Pat is saying that a quantity of strokes penalty, e.g. .85 for a missed shot, is the reason Seminole is a great design. In that case, why is Seminole greater than any treed course that extracts the same penalty for a missed shot? Is the difference that the excitement comes around the green. If I have a poor short game, then I should get my excitement on the treed course, whereas if I have a good short game, then I should get my excitement at Seminole?

Wouldn't it be better to consider whether Seminole is a great course, because it makes me choose to run the ball onto the front of the green to avoid spinning it off? Or that placing the ball in the proper place for the approach gives me an advantage over another place where I am forced to chance the approach that might skip off the green.

I guess that all the 9 holes courses of the small communities in the plains states can rejoice in having the opportunity of having the wind prevent their shots holding the green. In that respect they are as great as Seminole! :)
 
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2005, 10:43:34 PM »

I guess it comes down to your definition of a "marginal" shot.

When you get to the point that average players can't hold the greens and have no place to play safely -- like the 15th green at Augusta National when it's really fast, water in front and a severe back-to-front slope -- shaving the bank in front so a short shot rolls back into the water is a marginal idea at best.

Tom,

I think the example you present is one of extremes that even the good player is unable to cope with, as opposed to an architectural presentation that allows a poor, average or good player the leeway to succeed or fail if they understand the architectural presentation and make the choice to plan and execute in a fashion that allows them to take advantage of what the architect is giving them.

Greed, an overestimation of their abilities, a failure to understand the architecture or a combination of the above is the root cause of their failure.

The 15th green at Seminole is a good example, especially when the wind is from one of the prevailing directions, ESE or SE.

The approach is into the wind or a quartering wind.
The front of the green is pitched with a leveling off at the mid-point.

Approach shots from the left side of the fairway have to carry fronting bunkers.  Approach shots from the right have to carry the sloping portion of the green.

Failure to properly calculate the wind in combination with a failure to understand the greens characteristics often leads to disappointing results from a relatively short and benign approach shot.

Hitting a 60-80 yard shot five or ten yards long leaves the golfer with a fairly level putt.  Hitting a 60-80 yard shot five or ten yards short leaves the golfer in a bunker or back down in the fairway.  It's not uncommon for a ball with spin, into the wind, to back up 20 yards into a bunker or fairway.
Results the golfer rarely contemplates.

Compounding the issue is the golfers unfamiliarity with the concept and execution of low running shots.  There's a tendency to rely solely on the aerial aspect, WITH DISTANCE ALONE dictating club and shot selection.

This, I feel is the result of the "greening" of golf courses in America.

For once, TEPaul is correct, maintainance practices dictate these conditions.  Soft, lush conditions would mute or eliminate the intended effect of the architecture, depriving the golfer of a wonderful challenge.
[/color]

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #16 on: November 20, 2005, 10:45:48 PM »
Pat - Some people think that one of the tests of a GREAT course is if it penalizes missed shots in proportion to the severity of the error. Miss big and you're punished big... but, miss small and you're only punished a little. Proportional.

Some severe courses have no proportionality to their design. On these courses, whether you miss a little or a lot it doesn't matter as every miss is punished the same. I've never played Seminole or NGLA. Is there proportionality to their severity?

NO,  There's a randomness to it.
[/color]

Should there be?

Not necessarily
[/color]

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #17 on: November 20, 2005, 10:52:15 PM »
Pass or fail!?!? 18 holes of forced carries and the like. I don't think that is an accurate characterization of penal design. I think it is a characterization of mindless design.

Who defined penal golf in those words ?
[/color]

In essence, it sounds like Pat is saying that a quantity of strokes penalty, e.g. .85 for a missed shot, is the reason Seminole is a great design.

Where did I say that ?
[/color]

In that case, why is Seminole greater than any treed course that extracts the same penalty for a missed shot? Is the difference that the excitement comes around the green. If I have a poor short game, then I should get my excitement on the treed course, whereas if I have a good short game, then I should get my excitement at Seminole?

Have you ever seen or played Seminole ?
[/color]

Wouldn't it be better to consider whether Seminole is a great course, because it makes me choose to run the ball onto the front of the green to avoid spinning it off? Or that placing the ball in the proper place for the approach gives me an advantage over another place where I am forced to chance the approach that might skip off the green.

Where did I indicate anything different ?
[/color]

I guess that all the 9 holes courses of the small communities in the plains states can rejoice in having the opportunity of having the wind prevent their shots holding the green. In that respect they are as great as Seminole! :)

Do they present that opportunity in a 360 degree environment and from virtually every wind direction ?

Have you ever seen or played Seminole ?
[/color]
 
« Last Edit: November 20, 2005, 10:52:44 PM by Pat_Mucci »

Kyle Harris

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #18 on: November 20, 2005, 11:30:39 PM »
Poorly thought out shots, poorly executed shots and shots not quite hit on the money suffer the most.

Pat,

I think you hit the nail on the head with that statement. ANY of those things can be considered a marginal shot. Having never played Seminole, I can't speak for it.

However, the vast majority of courses that I enjoy allow the golfer to pick their marginality, and therefore their punishment. A clever golfer may think his way around a course effectively, but suffer some sort of penalities for poor execution. Through creativity and patience, he can still score well.

Likewise, a golfer with solid execution but no essence of thought may be hard pressed to rely more on his execution to get out of a bad angle. Even with perfect execution, he may find that he is punished.

Courses like Huntingdon Valley, Bethpage Red and Black and Manufacturer's seem to carry this balance in spades, and I believe that to be the very core of their appeal.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #19 on: November 20, 2005, 11:32:41 PM »

In my mind, penal courses are more .... pass or fail tests,



Who defined penal golf in those words ?
 

You did Pat.

In essence, it sounds like Pat is saying that a quantity of strokes penalty, e.g. .85 for a missed shot, is the reason Seminole is a great design.

Where did I say that ?
[/color]


You didn't say that. I said it sounds like you were saying that. I.e., you liked that if you marginally miss a shot you are faced with additional difficulties. I made an estimate that those difficulties might amount to .85 stroke.

As for whether I have played Seminole, I am afraid I haven't. Have you ever played Vermillion CC in Vermillion, SD? Too bad! It doesn't exist anymore. I guess we are both lacking in our golfing experience. Too bad!
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #20 on: November 21, 2005, 12:52:31 AM »
Pat

thanks for starting this thread.  I now have a great response to my club's C-graders and the like who are concerned that we might remove some bunkers which only catch the worst of shots.  Some of these guys consider they should be punished for hitting such a bad shot.  My response will echo Tom Doak's response above, ie


"If the bad player is punished severely, he'll quit the game.  If the good player is not challenged to play his best shots, he won't enjoy the game and he won't ever get any better.  Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."


Another great post.  Thinking about it further, if the bad player was punished eqally for his bad shots, the prospect of an interesting four hour game for any of us would be slim, because those poor devils in front of us would take forever to deal with the punishment that they so richly deserved. :o

James B  
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

TEPaul

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #21 on: November 21, 2005, 07:25:08 AM »
Tom Doak said;

"Solving the paradox of proportionality is the heart of golf architecture."

This is a beautiful statement and so true. The entire issue of how to treat what's being called "proportionality" (of penalty) on here was at the heart of the entire on-going philosophical/architectural debate and discussions (articles, books, etc) of the era in golf leading out of the so-called "penal" or "dark ages" of golf architecture. How to treat in a "penalty" context different levels of playing ability, in other words.

This subject and debate probably spawned "strategic" architecture. It spawned what was referred to (mostly in American architecture after the turn of the century) as "Modern" (or sometimes "scientific") architecture.

All of it was attempts to delve better or more judiciously (somehow) into the subject of "proportionality" (of penalty) in architecture. It seems some of the architectural philosophers such as Behr felt that there was no need at all to attempt to architecturally penalize the "dub" because as Behr said; 'his game alone was penalty enough for him". The idea was to let him keep playing with his imperfect game by not penalizing things like very wide shots with bunkering or rough (Behr didn't much like rough). But the idea was to penalize the marginally mishit shots of the higher calibre player because this would provide the necessary challenge for his far more exact game.

Luckily for golf and architecture, it seems, to some extent, it was possible to do both on good golf courses by basically compartmentalizing the philosophy into strokes or where strokes were most likely to be played from or to by different levels of golfers---eg what may challenge the crack golfer on his drive or second shot shouldn't much come into play for the dub on his second or third shots!  ;)

This was architecture's on-going debate and discussion founded on the philosophy of "proportionality" (of penalty). This is basically what architects like Tillinghast referred to (in writing) as "Modern" or "scientific" golf architecure. It was a philosophical approach across the playing levels to hazard placement and such.

Others such as J.H. Taylor in his creation of "Mid-Surrey" mounding (alpinization) was a bit more across the board in this philosophical debate and discussion of "proportionality" (of penalty). That architectural application's philosophy was basically the farther wide or off line ANYONE hit the ball the more they were penalized.

Ross's explanations of how a well constructed bunker should be designed plied basically the same philosophy---eg the farther wide you went in it the more you should be penalized by the height of its face.

TomD said;

"If someone tells you that a great course is one that punishes proportionally, that person is a narcissist in love with his own golf."

Interesting statement and probably the fundamental behind real "proportionality" (or penalty) in architecture across the levels of player ability.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2005, 07:30:47 AM by TEPaul »

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #22 on: November 21, 2005, 10:22:21 AM »

Pass or fail!?!?

Yes, pass or fail, do or die features that you encounter.
[/color]

18 holes of forced carries and the like. I don't think that is an accurate characterization of penal design. I think it is a characterization of mindless design.

I didn't say this. YOU DID.

And, that's one dimensional thinking.

Penal golf doesn't connote that EVERY shot you encounter has to be penal.  And, it doesn't connote forced carries on every shot.

Hitting a thin shot that comes up slightly short of its target and gets fed into a difficult bunker is an example of penal golf.

Pulling a running shot slightly off line into a deep greenside bunker is an example of penal golf.

Pass - fail refers to execution and the consequences there of, not forced carries as you defined penal golf.
[/color]

Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #23 on: November 21, 2005, 10:35:13 AM »

In my mind, penal courses are more .... pass or fail tests,



Who defined penal golf in those words ?
 

You did Pat.

In essence, it sounds like Pat is saying that a quantity of strokes penalty, e.g. .85 for a missed shot, is the reason Seminole is a great design.

Where did I say that ?
[/color]


You didn't say that. I said it sounds like you were saying that. I.e., you liked that if you marginally miss a shot you are faced with additional difficulties. I made an estimate that those difficulties might amount to .85 stroke.

You were incorrect.
[/color]

As for whether I have played Seminole, I am afraid I haven't.
 
Have you ever played Vermillion CC in Vermillion, SD? Too bad! It doesn't exist anymore. I guess we are both lacking in our golfing experience. Too bad!

That would depend on whether or not Vermillion CC possessed substantive, intrinsic architectural values.

Perhaps it was Vermillion's lack of enduring architectural values that caused its demise.

Seminole's outstanding architectural merit continues to endure.  The genius of Ross's design remains intact, accentuated by the wind.

Too bad you've never played there, it's the type of golf course you could play every day and never tire of.
[/color]


Pat_Mucci

Re:Penalizing the marginal shot
« Reply #24 on: November 21, 2005, 10:37:51 AM »

Poorly thought out shots, poorly executed shots and shots not quite hit on the money suffer the most.


The vast majority of courses that I enjoy allow the golfer to pick their marginality, and therefore their punishment. A clever golfer may think his way around a course effectively, but suffer some sort of penalities for poor execution. Through creativity and patience, he can still score well.

Likewise, a golfer with solid execution but no essence of thought may be hard pressed to rely more on his execution to get out of a bad angle. Even with perfect execution, he may find that he is punished.

Kyle,

I agree, I think this is the essence of golf course architecture that attracts us, challenges our games and provides the element of fun.
[/color]


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back