News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
How do you define interesting?
« on: July 23, 2007, 05:29:25 PM »
This year's majors have thus far provided golf that some have found fascinating, while others have seemed to find boring and wanting. Similar criticisms exist, to a lesser degree, of both Open venues this year, Oakmont and Carnoustie.

Needless to say, I am in the fascinating camp.

When I first became interested in golf course architecture, it was after reading The Captain, by Geoff Shackelford (thanks Geoff for getting me started), and I was intrigued by the hole diagrams with multiple fairways.

Then one day several years ago, Tom Doak dropped a bomb on me by posting an observation that few alternate fairways worked well because the options are usually too obvious, the defining differences too stark, and that cross bunkers in the fairway often suffer from similar limitations.

Wow, I thought about that one for a long time. I still think about it pretty frequently, when deciding why I feel the way I do about certain courses and events.

My own recent views on interesting golf are largely shaped by a small handful of courses and events - the 03 Open at Sandwich, the 03 Am at Oakmont, the 04 US Open at Shinney (see tagline), this year's Opens, etc.

I've been in a 6 month discussion now with Brent, Sean and Garland (with my arguments occasionally buttressed by favorite posters like Tom P, thanks Tom), about strategic architecture versus penal architecture. We seem to be at an impasse, no one really willing or able to concede the other side's points.

So here's another attempt by me to explain my own views, distinct from the traditional old definitions of "strategic" and "penal".

For me, architecture provides interest primarily by offering interesting shot challenges. Sometimes that means picking out a particular route to the green, and sometimes it means simply standing in the middle of the fairway on a hole with a challenging green and thinking, what's my (or anyone else's) best short at par?

Shinney, Sandwich, Oakmont, Carnoustie and Augusta this year have shown me that, while trying to engineer an artificial outcome of par winning a tournament may be a fool's challenge, there's nothing quite as interesting as giving a golfer a bunch of tough choices, regardless of whether they're strategic or penal. Hard can indeed by beautiful.

By contrast, I don't find calculating the carry distance to a certain bunker or water hazard very interesting, nor do I find "What's my yardage?" to be a very compelling summary of a golf shot, hole, or course.

Width can provide many interesting choices, but I don't find tacking around a death penalty hazard to be particularly enticing, no matter how "strategic" the placement of said hazard.

Well, enough of my BS - what holds your interest on a golf course?

Multiple defined options?

Less visible, indirect options?

Specific carry options?

Scenery?

History?

Cart girls?

What? What? What?!?
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 05:33:15 PM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2007, 05:44:02 PM »
George,
I don't have too much time to post today but I don't necessary agree with Tom Doak's comment that "few alternate fairways work well because the options are usually too obvious, the defining differences too stark, and that cross bunkers in the fairway often suffer from similar limitations."

That can be the case but frankly, I think he was being short sighted in his comments, possibly only looking at it from one type of players point of view (or under certain conditions) which is surprising coming from him.  As we saw for example very clearly at Carnoustie, a cross bunker one day on a hole can be almost completely out of play and then on the next cause golfers all kinds of consternation.  The same can go for alternate fairways (or alternate portions of fairways)  In a sense, cross bunkers or carry bunkers or even bunkers/hazards on the sides of fairway can form alternate fairways.  We saw it for example on #18 at Carnoustie that players hitting iron vs. attacking the hole with a driver were effectively playing to two different fairway locations.  Isn't that in effect what alternate fairways are all about.  Different risks, different rewards.

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2007, 05:44:08 PM »
My first reaction is that you know something is interesting when you see it.  Nonetheless, to better get at an answer, a couple of ideas sprang to mind right away:


Flying the ball over things e.g. – the bunkers on the inside corners at Royal Melbourne; trees on the inside corner of a dogleg, a house on one poorly designed course I played in college.


Sloped greens – our member guest was this weekend and I played with my father who hits it about 175 yards on a good tee shot.  On our 350 yard 15th hole, the green slopes severely from back to front and left to right with a bunker guarding the front of the green on the left side.



We figured out that my Dad could hit a drive and a 3 wood right of the green and leave an uphill chip.  On both days the pin was in the front portion of the green where the slope is most severe.  He won the hole in a couple of matches using that approach, despite opponents hitting driver/wedge.  It was great fun to devise the plan and see it work

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2007, 05:50:33 PM »
George,
I don't have too much time to post today but I don't necessary agree with Tom Doak's comment that "few alternate fairways work well because the options are usually too obvious, the defining differences too stark, and that cross bunkers in the fairway often suffer from similar limitations."

That can be the case but frankly, I think he was being short sighted in his comments, possibly only looking at it from one type of players point of view (or under certain conditions) which is surprising coming from him.  As we saw for example very clearly at Carnoustie, a cross bunker one day on a hole can be almost completely out of play and then on the next cause golfers all kinds of consternation.  The same can go for alternate fairways (or alternate portions of fairways)  In a sense, cross bunkers or carry bunkers or even bunkers/hazards on the sides of fairway can form alternate fairways.  We saw it for example on #18 at Carnoustie that players hitting iron vs. attacking the hole with a driver were effectively playing to two different fairway locations.  Isn't that in effect what alternate fairways are all about.  Different risks, different rewards.

Just to be clear, that is my paraphrasing of Tom's post from probably 5 years ago.

I think he said something along the lines of the choices are clear for good players - they know their carry distances well, and will automatically put in a margin for error that will render the decision quick and almost routine (again, my words, not his, but I think I'm communicating the gist of it okay).
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Patrick_Mucci

Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2007, 05:54:17 PM »
Like "Obscenity"   ;D

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2007, 05:57:24 PM »
My first reaction is that you know something is interesting when you see it.  Nonetheless, to better get at an answer, a couple of ideas sprang to mind right away:


Flying the ball over things e.g. – the bunkers on the inside corners at Royal Melbourne; trees on the inside corner of a dogleg, a house on one poorly designed course I played in college.


Sloped greens – our member guest was this weekend and I played with my father who hits it about 175 yards on a good tee shot.  On our 350 yard 15th hole, the green slopes severely from back to front and left to right with a bunker guarding the front of the green on the left side.



We figured out that my Dad could hit a drive and a 3 wood right of the green and leave an uphill chip.  On both days the pin was in the front portion of the green where the slope is most severe.  He won the hole in a couple of matches using that approach, despite opponents hitting driver/wedge.  It was great fun to devise the plan and see it work


I will add: Choices within choices.

Once he's decided to play that hole as driver/3-wood/chip, Jason's Dad could probably play the third shot on that hole with anything from a sand wedge to a seven-iron to a putter.

That kind of stuff holds my interest.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 05:58:04 PM by Dan Kelly™ »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2007, 05:58:18 PM »
George,
Tom may have said that the choices are clear for good players.   That is no surprise to anyone.  But it is because of things like cross bunkers and hazards and alternate fairway landing areas in general that create choices to begin with!  Without them, what choices need be made ;)

Off to see Harry Potter with the kids!
See ya,
Mark
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 05:58:50 PM by Mark_Fine »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2007, 05:59:00 PM »
It has been said that gca's (and I presume gca fans) find features interesting, while great golfers find shots interesting.

I can easily be interested in a course for any number of nice or unsual features, whether they affect my play or not. I often wander courses by other gca's wondering how they came up with that. I suppose others wander mine with the similar, and yet distinctly different phrase, "How in the hell did he ever think up that?!" ;)

For both features and shot requirements, I think the interest comes from variety. Too many courses have too similar bunkers, green sizes, etc. that limit look and limit shot types, usually in the name of "consistency." Of course, playing the same visual or shot requirement shot time after time isn't as interesting as playing a different one each time, so variety is a key to interest, for me.

So, as much as I personally like a moderately possible carry bunker, or shaped tee shot, or recovery options, I wouldn't go out of my way to put those in place hole after hole. I hate narrow tee shots, but want to see at least one per course, for example, as well as one forced hook and one forced fade, despite the fact I probably couldn't pull off either on a consistent basis.

More later, I have to go.

BTW, I still think the nature of "strategy" as described by the Golden Age guys is changing, and holding on to width as the be all end all is not the way to go in many cases.  Basically, the margin for error needs to be pulled in closer to the target - and sometimes, using contour in fw and greens and approach and side areas to greens - in the main target itself.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2007, 06:09:37 PM »
George:

Your paraphrase of what I said sounds reasonably accurate, although I don't think I would have tried to kill both birds (alternate fairways and cross bunkers) with a single stone.

I can think of two ways to define interesting:

1)  What I like above all is variety, not only from hole to hole, but from round to round.  An architect can't do much about the player who successfully plays from tee to landing pole to flag.  What we CAN do is present different problems and recoveries for players when they don't succeed in playing from point to point.  If we do it well, there will be a range of difficulty depending on the location of the hole and the side you've missed on, and eventually a player who's played the hole many times will figure out on which side he should miss any given hole location.  That's the essence of strategy to me.  Or,

2)  You can just come over to the UK for a couple or six months, and you'll figure it out.

Peter Pallotta

Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2007, 08:13:18 PM »
George -
I think interesting courses engage us, and in doing so either allow, request or demand our participation with them. (I'd venture to say that strategic courses tend to allow us to participate, while penal courses tend to demand that we do.) From there, I'm not sure what makes that participation most fulfilling for the golfer. Others have said variety, and they're probably right, but I don't quite see it that way; or at least, I don't find variety to be that important an element. For me, I think that courses that allow me to participate most fully are the most enjoyable. That is, they ask me to use my mind, they require that I use my body (i.e. golfing skills), they calm my spirit, they please my senses (sight, sound, and smell), and perhaps, occasionally, they feed my soul.

I should say that, for someone like me, who plays golf in part because it is as close to nature as he gets, a natural setting and ambience are important elements of the soul-work.  

Peter  
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 08:14:51 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2007, 08:14:33 PM »
Choices, challenges and changing conditions are all very important, IMO.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2007, 08:40:26 PM »
George:

In my opinion, courses (architecture) becomes interesting when, for whatever reason, players tend to play the course differently from one day to the next or players of tour caliber tend to play the course differently from one another during a tournament.

What we need to ask is why is that true of various players on particular courses and not on others?

I think in the end what we will find is whether various options and strategies are distance related or direction related or sometimes both that the various options are "well balanced", if you know what I mean. In a state of "equilibrium", if you will.

On the other hand, strategies, in reality, are not always executed throughout whole holes perfectly by any player and that fact forces them to recalculate and recalibrate their options and strategies during holes and that's where great architecture comes in again to either cast things into a form of shot demand or "balanced" shot options that aren't that clear to even decide on.


I'd even be glad to give you a bunch of holes that are interesting this way, at least to me, and for reasons that are very different from one another regarding their options and strategies.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 08:42:14 PM by TEPaul »

Brent Hutto

Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2007, 08:45:38 PM »
Good topic, George. It deserve more thought on my part but for now I'll give one example of "interesting" that's about as good as it gets for my game.

The tenth hole at Deal is a shortish two-shotter with a tee shot into a slight dogleg-left fairway. You can see the green in the distance and the more you aim toward the green the shorter the hole (slightly) but the green really wants to accept shots from the right.

I played it twice the same day with a breeze behind me. The first time I hit what I thought was a dead perfect tee shot, cutting off a tiny bit of the dogleg and near the center of the fairway. Just a 7-iron to a middle hole location. The ball landed short of hole high and went over the green and into the rough at the base of the seawall. After lunch, I happened to hit my tee shot about 10 yards to the right. A little farther from the green but the breeze was a bit stronger so I hit another 7-iron. This time it landed a few paces on the green and stopped 10 feet past the hole.

Any wide-open hole that plays completely differently from two spots 10 yards apart in the fairway is interesting. It's even better when that can be done on a short hole that offers "interest" to even a player of my caliber who plays a downwind 350-yarder with driver and 7-iron yet offers a fair challenge to better players.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2007, 09:26:30 PM »
Choices, challenges and changing conditions are all very important, IMO.

Joe

More or less important than alliteration?
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2007, 09:28:58 PM »
Choices, challenges and changing conditions are all very important, IMO.

Joe

More or less important than alliteration?

Far less. I don't golf very often...... ;D

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2007, 09:51:40 PM »
Far less. I don't golf very often......  ;D

Joe, Joe, JOE!!

One does not "golf". The word "golf" is not a verb my good man. It is only a noun. One does not "golf" or even "go golfing". One just "plays golf".

And I don't even care if some smart-ass dictionary has a secondary listing for "golf" as a verb with some BS "ME" (Middle English or Scottish) derivation. It is just not done to say "I golf" or "I don't golf" or I "go golfing". Some things are like running one's fingernails down a blackboard and to say "I golf" happens to be one of them.

If you want to instantly improve your game and your handicap by at least ten strokes learn to say "I play golf" rather than "I golf". It will make you feel so much more like a real "golfer".  

;)

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2007, 10:58:22 PM »
Far less. I don't golf very often......  ;D

Joe, Joe, JOE!!

One does not "golf". The word "golf" is not a verb my good man. It is only a noun. One does not "golf" or even "go golfing". One just "plays golf".

And I don't even care if some smart-ass dictionary has a secondary listing for "golf" as a verb with some BS "ME" (Middle English or Scottish) derivation. It is just not done to say "I golf" or "I don't golf" or I "go golfing". Some things are like running one's fingernails down a blackboard and to say "I golf" happens to be one of them.

If you want to instantly improve your game and your handicap by at least ten strokes learn to say "I play golf" rather than "I golf". It will make you feel so much more like a real "golfer".  

;)


The editor in me insists that you at least consider that golfing is a sport, like shooting, fishing and riding, in that there's no defense.

One of Max Behr's essays convinced me that games, like football and basketball, and chess all involve your opponent playing defense, while shooting and golfing competitions often don't even require that you and your opponents occupy the playing field simultaneously.

We play football, but we go golfing. We shoot, we ride and we golf.

And if there's any doubt about the acceptability of the ...ing form, I offer the 1961 book from The Sunday Times, "Go Golfing in Britain," a survey of 25 famous seaside courses.

I admit, however, that it's a minority viewpoint.
<grin>
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 10:59:07 PM by kmoum »
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Mike Wagner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2007, 12:27:02 AM »
Interseting encompassed so many things, it's hard to pin down.  Courses that offer creativity are on the top of my list.  This means they play different and fair in different conditions.  Courses that don't require a total aerial assault, but reward shot making (run ups, missing it on the correct side of the hole, etc) are essential in capturing my interest.  courses that require thought, are playable for ALL golfers, and have great scenery are generally a wonderful experience.

Pete Lavallee

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #18 on: July 24, 2007, 12:46:43 AM »
My simple definition is any course which makes you vary from your stock shot and play something completely different than normal.
"...one inoculated with the virus must swing a golf-club or perish."  Robert Hunter

Jordan Wall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2007, 12:55:23 AM »

Well, enough of my BS - what holds your interest on a golf course?

Multiple defined options?

Yes, for sure.  I like thinking about ways to play the hole.  Holes with one way to effectively make a good score are boring!

Less visible, indirect options?

Yes, because it makes the player pay attention.

Specific carry options?

Occasionally.  Variety is key to a course.  I dont mind one or two forced carries a round.

Scenery?

Definitely.  Though some say scenery should not affect a golf course, I only agree to a point.  A cool vista on a hole is definitely a plus.  However, when factoring how good a golf course is, I do not think scenerey should be included.  However, if scenery comes into play on the course (ocean on PD or CPC, for example), it is no longer really 'scenery', but rather a part of the golf course.

History?

Well, history is definitely interesting to me.  I think ambience can add to a golf course, anyways.  It adds to the aura of the club and course.  Plus, its always fun to sense the history when playing a course.  Like Augusta.  If I ever played Augusta I would remember all the great shots hit and think about how cool it is I am where those great shots were hit.  So yes, I think history, or ambience, is interesting.

Cart girls?

 :-X ;D :-X

What? What? What?!?


Other things I find interesting on a golf course, are features like bunker shapes, how the contouring of the course fits in with the land, and how varied the holes are.  I like a good set of greens, too.

I love short par-4's with many options and risks.
I also love short par-5's with many options and risks.
I really enjoy long par-3's that allow you to use green and fairway contours to get the ball close, and short par-3's which require precision.


Geez, now that I look at everything, I'm pretty darn picky about what I like in a course.
 ;D
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 12:58:02 AM by Jordan Wall »

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2007, 03:43:14 AM »
I like conflict between multiple hazards or difficulties.  It is easy to design a one dimensional hole where the strategy is clear (stay right on PB's 18th) or determined for you (any of the million holes where OB, water, or lost ball country lines both sides of the fairway)

You can progress to holes where you have to make decisions based on your abilities or the conditions, say a cape hole like North Berwick's 2nd, a hole with a central hazard like TOC's 16th.

But things really get interesting where multiple hazards interface with each other so you have a large range of possibilities and gaining an advantage against one hazard puts you into greater conflict with other.  TOC's 17th is a great example of this, but I think this weekend showed Carnoustie's 18th as a great example as well.

Consider that the best position to attack any pin on that green is from the left side of the fairway -- that's dictated by the bunker on the right and more importantly the OB left.  However, by driving there you bring the rough to the left in play (not to mention the OB left, even though the OB off the tee wasn't a big concern for the pros)  If you hit into that rough you bring the OB left of the green in play if the rough turns your club over a bit, as well as the burn short if you catch it a bit heavy!

You can ease that difficulty by playing to the right, but then you bring the burn and the fairway bunkers into play, and your angle is less desireable because short right pin positions (like Sunday's pin) are less accessible due to the bunker, and you are coming in at an angle that means less of a miss is needed to hit it OB.

You can avoid all that difficulty by playing right of the burn well in the 17th fairway.  There is no OB, no water, no rough, and no bunkers on your drive, and you can still reach the green without much difficulty.  However, you have an awful angle that really brings the OB left into play and actually brings the burn to the forefront on your approach because that's where a pulled or hooked approach will end up due to the extreme angle you are approaching from, plus it is very hard to hit that green while avoiding that bunker that you essentially have to aim at!

But despite all that, if you want to play the hole for a 5, it is very simple to do and takes all risk out of it for any pro.  I love taking chances but I wonder if I wasn't a pro playing in an Open there if I wouldn't pull a Zach Johnson and decide to just lay up there every day no matter what the other players are doing.

And that discussion above doesn't even take the conditions into account, a good 30 mph wind will increase the number of permutations exponentially!
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Ray Richard

Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2007, 07:42:51 AM »
I have found interesting golf courses to have the following characteristics.

1.   Understated ambiance-I hate to play a golf course that has loud signage of any type. If you are playing a good course you should know the rules of the game and proper etiquette. I don’t like signs on the first tee that loudly tell you the law of the land. You’re on a golf course to relax and to get away from stressful stimuli. Put a few tiny signs up control traffic, note yardages and that’s all.  Staffing should be low profile, I always find it interesting that when you play a course that has nobody around until you need them, instead of a plethora of artificially happy types.
2.   Design variety-Make every hole look different, to allow for strategic thinking on each shot. Expand upon bunker themes by variation, don’t repeat a bunker form, and make each one slightly different. Mounding should be dissimilar and placed randomly. Green sizes should vary, don’t make them all 5500 s.f. Cookie cutter designs are very uninteresting-they bore by repeating themes. If you run into environmental problems while building the course, don’t construct a mediocre hole and say you were limited by permitting. An interesting layout can be deemed uninteresting if you have a couple of bad holes.  Don’t use architectural gimmicks like island greens-somebody already thought of that. Get innovative,think of something new,that really makes a golf course interesting, without being artificial. Make the consumer sit back and say, “I’ve never seen that before”.
3.   Design integrity-Follow the historical routing philosophy if the site allows-a strong closing hole, an easy opening hole, a few difficult par 3’s, etc. Courses that end with a par #3 aren’t traditional and are anticlimactic.



Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2007, 08:00:46 AM »
Far less. I don't golf very often......  ;D

Joe, Joe, JOE!!

One does not "golf". The word "golf" is not a verb my good man. It is only a noun. One does not "golf" or even "go golfing". One just "plays golf".

And I don't even care if some smart-ass dictionary has a secondary listing for "golf" as a verb with some BS "ME" (Middle English or Scottish) derivation. It is just not done to say "I golf" or "I don't golf" or I "go golfing". Some things are like running one's fingernails down a blackboard and to say "I golf" happens to be one of them.

If you want to instantly improve your game and your handicap by at least ten strokes learn to say "I play golf" rather than "I golf". It will make you feel so much more like a real "golfer".  

;)


Tom I --

The Sunday Times be damned! I couldn't agree with you more.

However...

For foolish consistency's sake, I do think your last line should be: "It will make you feel so much more like a real 'golf player.' "

Are those fingernails I hear?

Yrs.,
Dan

"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2007, 04:38:04 PM »
Doug, I like the way you think, excellent dissection of the 18th.

One of the real eye openers to me was the realization that it may just be best to have multiple features in play, just like you describe. When there is only one bunker, for instance, while it may be strategic, it also might make the choice too simple, or at least too clear cut.

I'll never forget seeing player after player standing in the middle of the fairway of the shortish 10th at Shinnecock, holding a short iron, often a wedge, and you could tell they were just thinking, how the heck am I gonna par this hole?

Sean, I don't think impasse is the right word, but I think Doug did a good job explaining where we might differ, even if it's just by a little.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How do you define interesting?
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2007, 05:09:34 PM »
Doug,

Your description misses a few things, IMHO.

First, with rough/creek/OB left, and water right (with bunkers right if you fly far enough) I am not sure there is enough wiggle room to really aim left or right edge of the fw, unless its to go to 17 fw as you suggest.

I agree generally the left is the best approach angle, although there is a bunker there, which might actually save a shot from OB, who knows?

I think 18 has nearly equal hazards both sides - kind of like what you describe as anti strategic.  That means play down the middle and be accurate.  I think the accuracy required suggests laying back on a long par 4, which brings the creek into play on the second if too short.  So, its another example of length strategy, not so much right to left.

Basically, I think your point is more valid if the hazards on both sides of the target area (including no hazard at all, on the old Augusta theory in some cases) are both varied in character/difficulty and staggered more down the length of the fw so that each comes into play differently.  And, that combines length/line in a better way.

Of course, I don't play at those levels, so I could be wrong.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach