[Patrick_Mucci]

should it be penalized or accomodated by the architecture ?

It seems that the ODG's penalized it.

With so many resort, residential community and public golf facilities it seems that the trend is to accomodate it.

Which should it be..... and why ?

[Rick Shefchik]

Sometimes penalized, more often not.

If marginal shots were penalized too often, golf would be too difficult and frustrating for the average player and take too long. I would classify most of our shots (mine, anyway) as marginal.

Yet if marginal shots were accomodated too often, golf would become boring.

[JESII]

Pat,

Please describe Marginal Shot.

Then please compare Penalize and Accommodate.


I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass, but the scratch players marginal shot is probably a pretty good shot for the bogey golfer (except the ones you play with   ) and a penalizing situation for the bogey golfer might not be too bad for the scratch.

So an easier request might be just to ask what caliber of player are you thinking of?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

This kind of question, one of many in the vein of specifically how a golfer should be penalized or not, is essentially a mind-set that I believe began around the beginning of the teens with some architects. They called it "modern" architecture or sometimes "scientific" architecture and it was basically an attempt to design for specific shot values for various player levels.

This kind of mindset, taken to the extreme, is not good for golf course architecture, in my opinion. It takes things down the road towards formulaics or standardizations in architecture and that can get too far away from the fascinating randomness of Nature which certainly includes natural hazard features that can be the farthest thing from formulaics or standardization.

Max Behr called the constant inclination to do this kind of thing "The Game Mind of Man". By that he meant Man's penchant for defining and explaining everything.  

[Brent Hutto]

Much of the time Mr. Paul says things around here that I have no idea what he's talking about. And when he invokes Max Behr, well those are usually the occasions I'm referring to.

In this case he has it exactly right. If you want to get all scientific about it and you decide to challenge good players then you're going to end up with something like a stereotypical "US Open setup" with ribbon-like fairways, punitive rough, over-the-top putting conditions and enough penal features to make sure every single "marginal" shot is punished.

I've played Cypress Point, arguably the greatest design by a notable Old Dead Guy. That course has plenty of design features to reward good shots but I would not characterize it as punishing this bogey golfer's "marginal" shots with any regularity.

Conversely, some of the Florida-style resort courses and housing development ones with OB smack up against the line of play everywhere can be penal as hell with either water hazards or houses in play for the kinds of shots I hit a dozen times a round (i.e. a ball aimed down the right edge of the fairway that is pulled instead of sliced). Give me an ODG course any day.

[Andy Troeger]

I think some of the key here is that most of the good/great courses I've seen do both. On most shots for the better player, there are "marginal" shots that will be penalized and others accommodated. He/she just needs to know where they can miss it. This allows everyone else room to have a "bail-out" area as well that is not overly penalizing and allows recovery.

To me that's probably the best way to do it, although I think its reasonable to have a couple of "penal" holes on a course and a couple "accommodating" holes to spice things up a little bit

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

MacKenzie is an ODG, and I don't think he did it, at least after Augusta, which was probably the turning point for penalizing the marginal shot.......

The argument against it is that it is punishment enough.

Tee shot- say hitting it 225 rather than 260 is a substantially longer approach shot.  That's enough.

Approach Shot - miss it very far from the hole reduces chance of birdie to near zero.  Miss the green altogether and par is dependent on your short game.  Nothing wrong with that.  If you added signifigant hazards to punish all marginal shots outside the green, the most likely result would to have a player hitting marginal shots lose a match by ten shots, not two.  It would also effectively take away choices.  If any miss will be punished, may as well aim for the flag.

Its far more interesting to punish the marginal shot in one or just a few places on most shots.  With a tucked pin near a single hazard, the choice for someone playng marginally is to attack the pin and risk a one to three stroke penalty in the hazard, play safe for the middle of the green for likely par, or play well away from the hazard for likely bogey, but taking the chance of double out of play.

Does that really matter in most cases if someone has been "properly punished" if you have determined who is playing best that day?  Yes, its possible that the marginal player could continue to get lucky all day and miss punishment, but it doesn't happen often and he will lose 99% of the time.

Its called strategic architecture.

[Brent Hutto]

Its far more interesting to punish the marginal shot in one or just a few places on most shots.  With a tucked pin near a single hazard, the choice for someone playng marginally is to attack the pin and risk a one to three stroke penalty in the hazard, play safe for the middle of the green for likely par, or play well away from the hazard for likely bogey, but taking the chance of double out of play.

Exactly. Punish particular marginal shots? Yes. Punish all marginal shots? No.

Or to think of it another way, the ideal is to punish the marginal shot played with hubris but decline to punish the marginal shot played with humility.

[Andy Hughes]

I think JES has asked some good questions. It depends on what penalized and accomodated mean.  

I think of the Old Course and Pinehurst #2, where pretty shaky shots are often not strictly 'penalized' in the sense that they end up OB or in deep rough or lost. 'Course, the next shot may be much tougher than if the shot had been properly played, but perhaps that is being 'penalized' AND 'accomodated' at the same time

[BCrosby]

Or to think of it another way, the ideal is to punish the marginal shot played with hubris but decline to punish the marginal shot played with humility.

Well said.

The issue of what you do with the marginal shot goes to the heart of what you believe gca ought to be about.

In a rough and ready way, you can think of it as a MacKenzie/Behr/Jones (Bobby) alliance at war with a Fownes/Joshua Crane/USGA/Joe Dey alliance. How those two different factions view the fate of the marginal shot pretty much defines their differences.

Those opposing alliances have battled over the soul of gca for 90 or so years. The battle is still going on. Or rather, I hope it is. I sometimes worry that the MacK team may have already lost.

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

Bob,

Where on your continuum would you place a Tom Fazio's typical work? Not his tournament-redo stuff but his more notable private and resort courses over the past ten year or so.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Good golfers get good breaks.  Bad golfers get bad breaks.

The marginal shot is just that - marginal.  I saw a 1 hcp shoot even par with 4 marginal shots - all that bounced his way by inches.  He probably could have salvaged par in 2 of the 4 instances to shoot +2.

JWK

[Dan Kelly]

... the ideal is to punish the marginal shot played with hubris but decline to punish the marginal shot played with humility.

Engrave that somewhere. Beautifully put.

[BCrosby]

Brent -

I've asked myself the same question. When set against the history of gca, Fazio is an odd duck. At a number of levels.

So let me think out loud. The thing that always strikes me about Fazio (and at first you often don't notice it) is that his generous bail-out areas off the tee tend to put you in the best position to approach the green. If that is a fair generalization (and there are exceptions) his designs are both non-strategic and non-penal.

Very odd. Sort of a non-architecture architecture. (That, I think, is at the root of why so many people call him a landscape designer and not a real golf architect. Bascially, I agree. He is not practising "golf" architecture per se. Which is consistent with his lack of interest in (disdain for?)his architectural predecessors. They have nothing to say to a designer with Fazio's program.)

Put differently, Fazio uses hazards to guide the player through the course. Hazards are simple danger signs, players are given lots of room to avoid them and - this is the genius part - by hitting away from the hazard you get an easier approach shot.

That would normally be considered boring, insipid architecture. But Fazio pulls it off because of his remarkable eye for beautiful routings and landscapes combined with a knack for making holes look harder than they are. The two aren't unrelated. No one fakes a great hole better. That's not a minor talent.

I guess where I come out is that Fazio is sui generis. He is different without appearing so. He has stepped outside the usual gca bloodlines. His stuff is not penal, it's not strategic, it's not heroic. His courses look like they embody those things but the teeth are missing. I think a big part of Fazio's appeal to the average member is that after you play his courses a couple of times, they won't intimidate you. As if by magic they will lure you into thinking that you are a better golfer than you really are. People feel good about themselves in the bar after the round.

Fazio's genuis is to de-emphasize traditional golf values (and the anxieties that go with them) and to emphasize the joys of spending time in beautiful surroundings. As I said, he's a genius to have been the first to see the appeal of this approach. And he has been rewarded generously by the golfing public.

Bob  

[John Kavanaugh]

Brent -

I've asked myself the same question. When set against the history of gca, Fazio is an odd duck. At a number of levels.

So let me think out loud. The thing that always strikes me about Fazio (and at first you often don't notice it) is that his generous bail-out areas off the tee tend to put you in the best position to approach the green. If that is a fair generalization (and there are exceptions) his designs are both non-strategic and non-penal.

Very odd. Sort of a non-architecture architecture. (That, I think, is at the root of why so many people call him a landscape designer and not a real golf architect. Bascially, I agree. He is not practising "golf" architecture per se. Which is consistent with his lack of interest in (disdain for?)his architectural predecessors. They have nothing to say to a designer with Fazio's program.)

Put differently, Fazio uses hazards to guide the player through the course. Hazards are simple danger signs, players are given lots of room to avoid them and - this is the genius part - by hitting away from the hazard you get an easier approach shot.

That would normally be considered boring, insipid architecture. But Fazio pulls it off because of his remarkable eye for beautiful routings and landscapes combined with a knack for making holes look harder than they are. The two aren't unrelated. No one fakes a great hole better. That's not a minor talent.

I guess where I come out is that Fazio is sui generis. He is different without appearing so. He has stepped outside the usual gca bloodlines. His stuff is not penal, it's not strategic, it's not heroic. His courses look like they embody those things but the teeth are missing. I think a big part of Fazio's appeal to the average member is that after you play his courses a couple of times, they won't intimidate you. As if by magic they will lure you into thinking that you are a better golfer than you really are. People feel good about themselves in the bar after the round.

Fazio's genuis is to de-emphasize traditional golf values (and the anxieties that go with them) and to emphasize the joys of spending time in beautiful surroundings. As I said, he's a genius to have been the first to see the appeal of this approach. And he has been rewarded generously by the golfing public.

Bob  

Bob,

How many Fazio's have you played outside your dreams...You would have thought the guy was going through a divorce when he built Victoria National.  Speaking of that..I'm getting ready to go play and am already intimidated by 3, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.  It must be the anti-Fazio design but it is really the only one I have ever "studied"..Every marginal shot I produce will be penalized to an extent far above the taste of this board.  But hell, nobody twisted my arm and I won't be joined by any weak kneed egotists who live in a dislusion of grandeur.

[Brent Hutto]

Excellent analysis, Bob. I can't really validate it by my own experience since I haven't played his courses but it sounds like I might find many of his courses to be a fine experience even if not the place I'd want to play every week. Interesting niche he's created, makes you wonder to what extent he aimed for it versus just happening to have that particular set of talents and inclinations...

[John Kavanaugh]

Brent,

How can you call Bob's analysis excellent when I can prove him 100% wrong....Why do you believe these rumors when there are no facts..

[BCrosby]

John -

I've played a large number of Fazio courses (both new and redo's) over many years.  

Bob

[Brent Hutto]

As I said, I can't validate it because I haven't had or found oppotunities to play Fazio courses.

However, Bob has clearly stated a well thought out hypothesis that can be supported or refuted by actually examining the man's courses...which is more than I can say about some of the bullshit that passes for discussion around here on a bad day.

You've taken a good first step in falsifying Bob's theory although as you point out it's always possible that your course is highly atypical of Fazio's work. One possibility would be that he took his first look at the property that was to become Victoria National and figured his usual type of course wasn't going to fit that piece of land.

If so, it speaks highly of his talent that he was able to build an excellent course unlike the bulk of his experience when the terrain so dictated. I've heard it said that C&C simply decline jobs when they can't picture their signature approach working on the land they are given.

[Tim Gavrich]

Doesn't the consensus #1 in the world punish just about all marginal shots?  I've never played it, but from the pictures I've seen, PV looks just about as unforgiving as anycourse in the world. But, it's still about the best in the world.

I remember Tiger Woods commented before the 2004 PGA that Whistling Straits penalized most marginal shots.  But the venue was met with praise across the board from the players.  What this tells me is that courses which expect to hold a lot of play at a very high level should penalize, let's say, more than 60% of "marginal shots" whatever that may mean, and that more conventional courses should be a little more forgiving, given their goal.

This relates to the "great golf club" thread, I think.  If a club has a relatively high number of above-average players, shouldn't it fall under the "penalizes many most marginal shots" category?

[John Kavanaugh]

Fine,

I think there are 14 Fazio courses in the Golfweek top 100 modern...How many fit Bob's model.  I have also played most of the 36 holes at Forest Creek and can say they are not anti-strategic nurseries.  I specifically remember a very interesting cross bunker complex on the original course and water behind, in stead of in front, of some greens.  I know this may sound strange but I find water behind a green more strategic than in front...oops..

[BCrosby]

John -

I have no reason to doubt that you are intimidated by some Fazio holes, or that he's built some cross bunkers or that there is water in, around or behind some of his greens. Seen some of that myself. Don't get me wrong, Fazio has designed some good courses.

But after playing Fazio courses for about 20 years, the above was a summary of my impressions of his work. I'll stick by what I wrote.

I would note that Fazio did not become the most popular architect of our time because of his strengths as a strategic designer. It's entirely possible that Fazio would agree with that statement. Heck, the word doesn't even appear in Fazio's own book. (Or if it does, I missed it.) His book does contain, however, innumerable references to aesthetics, beauty, framing, settings, symmetry, balance, atmosphere, etc. Why don't we take him at his own word? Maybe he is trying to tell us something.

My thesis is that things other than traditional gca values account for his enormous success. I was trying explore what those other things might be. I'm not sure I've figured it out. But I'm pretty sure I know what has not been the main driver of his success.

Bob

[Jim Thompson]

... the ideal is to punish the marginal shot played with hubris but decline to punish the marginal shot played with humility.

Engrave that somewhere. Beautifully put.

Is that something like...

"Punish the greedy, not the needy."

Or another way ... should we punish driver more than the three wood?

[George Pazin]

I believe it should be accomodated BUT the recovery shot should be really tough. In other words, make it possible to recover, but pretty unlikely.

[Dan Kelly]

Is that something like...

"Punish the greedy, not the needy."

It's something like the mantra I've heard many journalists use: Afflict the comfortable, and comfort the afflicted.

As a motto, I like it better for GCA than for journalism.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()