Forced carries or totally parallel hazards that cannot be carried--Bad design ?

« **Reply #25 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:02:17 AM »

Jason,

You make a good point that often the hazard at a diagonal can aid the longer hitter. In some ways the shorter hitter may not be able to use strategy in this case . He must take the long route.

Certainly it is great to see someone has solved this dilemma.

« **Reply #26 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:04:44 AM »

Quote from: mayday_malone on January 31, 2006, 10:49:51 AM

Actually the water that runs along the side of the line of play with no carry option is more bothersome to me . The result is a decision to avoid at all costs since there is little or no benefit to hugging it.

This is usually seen at resort courses .

Now if Pat can find some interesting uses of this hazard I will be impressed.

Have you ever seen the 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 18th holes at Pebble Beach ?

How about the 4th, 11th and 13th at Pacific Dunes ?

The 9th at Maidstone ?

The 18th at NGLA ?[/color]

« **Reply #27 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:10:40 AM »

Pat,

If the green is 15 to 20 yards front to back (which I assume it is) then there is a club difference between a front pin and a back pin. If Dye does not get you to think of several options than he did a bad job. I don't care if I go into the water as long as I realize it was a possibilty for the choice I made.

We have a short par three #3 at Rolling Green. It is best to just hit it in the middle of the green. But I don't know many who choose to do that. The designer lures you into thinking you can put it in a ten yard area.

« **Reply #28 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:14:24 AM »

I have a hard time with water but...

Forced carries over water is usually no problem for the good players and the best way to slow down play on a public course.

I do like water hazard down along one side of a hole, but the water must look scary. Like the 18th Sawgrass...

« **Reply #29 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:16:49 AM »

Quote from: mayday_malone on January 31, 2006, 11:10:40 AM

If the green is 15 to 20 yards front to back (which I assume it is) then there is a club difference between a front pin and a back pin.

Let's get the exact dimensions so that we don't have to speculate.[/color]

If Dye does not get you to think of several options than he did a bad job.

Really ?

Remind me again, what's your handicap ?

And, you're that precise with your play to a green completely surruounded by water ?
[/color]

I don't care if I go into the water as long as I realize it was a possibilty for the choice I made.

On that hole, it's a given, a universal.
No matter what your choice, the water looms large.[/color]

We have a short par three #3 at Rolling Green. It is best to just hit it in the middle of the green. But I don't know many who choose to do that. The designer lures you into thinking you can put it in a ten yard area.

That depends upon whether or not the golfer deludes himself into thinking that he can hit a shot that his talent can't produce on a demand basis.[/color]

« **Reply #30 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:17:55 AM »

I think the use of water on the right of all of those consecutive holes at Pebble is a WEAKNESS . I have only seen it on TV , but I think there are different angles relative to the fairway. In fact #18 is a classic "carry option" diagonal.

It is simple. When you are on the tee are you deciding how to use the water with your shot. If you only say " I must avoid it" ,I think that is a weaker form of design.

« **Reply #31 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:26:17 AM »

Quote from: mayday_malone on January 31, 2006, 11:17:55 AM

I think the use of water on the right of all of those consecutive holes at Pebble is a WEAKNESS . I have only seen it on TV , but I think there are different angles relative to the fairway.

A weakness ? You must be kidding ?

Do you feel the same way about the 5th at Merion ?

Are you familiar with the slope and contouring of the 8th, 9th and 10th fairways at Pebble Beach ?[/color]

In fact #18 is a classic "carry option" diagonal.

You're so wrong it's mind boggling.

For WHOM is # 18 a classic "carry option" ?

Noone I know attempts to carry anything, it's pure suicide.

Let's chalk this one up to the fact that you've been deceived by the Goodyear Blimp and Ground Level TV.[/color]

It is simple. When you are on the tee are you deciding how to use the water with your shot. If you only say " I must avoid it" ,I think that is a weaker form of design.

We have a vast difference of opinion on what constitutes good versus weak design.

But, let's get back to the 5th at Merion, and the genius of the design.

The left side creek, the fairway and rough that slope high right to low left. The cant of the green. The prefered angle of attack.

Are you starting to see the genius of the creek as it relates to the architecture, strategy, shot selections and the play of the hole ?

Risk-reward ?[/color]

« **Reply #32 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:27:04 AM »

Pat,

Not to worry! I'll did the work. 26 yards is the depth. That is plenty for strategy. The back yardage is only 130 ish. What seems interesting is that he shaped the hole so that even as you move the tees to the left as you shorten it to 80 yards there is still depth. The guy seemed to answer many of the challenges I see for water here.

I'm a damned dangerous 13 hdcper.

Isn't the beauty of architecture getting people to think they can do on demand what they probably can't.

I know you agree with me Pat . You are just bored this morning so you feel like lobbing questions out there to hear someone else say what you believe.

« **Reply #33 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:45:23 AM »

#5 Merion--one of my top five par fours.... Thanks for bringing this up as a great example of the proper placement of water.

There is a tiny sliver of a creek that can catch a topped shot , but I imagine you are thinking of the narrow creek that runs down the left side. It is super strategic and there is no forced carry. Unlike some artificial lake you see on a resort course , you can miss it to the LEFT of the creek. Obviously that is some bad rough, but you have a shot.

I would think that most golfers are confident in their ability to deal with that creek. This does not mean they will be successful ; only that they think they will.

Pat, I think these small creeks are fabulous. We have one of a few feet at Rolling Green . It amazes me how many times people hit into it.

The "weakness" of those consecutive holes at Pebble is in the routing. It is too little variety . They should have broken that up with some directional change. Just because it is Pebble it doesn't get a free ride.

« **Reply #34 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:48:30 AM »

mayday, mayday: I thought we were turning you around, then you go and rip 8-10 at Pebble.....

« **Reply #35 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:50:43 AM »

Paul,

I'm sorry but three holes in a row with water on the right is a sign of an amateur designer who may be more interested in the scene than the golf.

« **Reply #36 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:54:52 AM »

Mayday Mayday!

How else could you do the routing?

« **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2006, 11:56:01 AM »

Quote from: mayday_malone on January 31, 2006, 11:50:43 AM

Paul,

I'm sorry but three holes in a row with water on the right is a sign of an amateur designer who may be more interested in the scene than the golf.

argh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

« **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2006, 12:05:21 PM »

Quote from: mayday_malone on January 31, 2006, 11:50:43 AM

I'm sorry but three holes in a row with water on the right is a sign of an amateur designer who may be more interested in the scene than the golf.

Wow...I guess this shows that "If you have only seen it on TV, then you haven't seen it!"

Hmmm...come to think about it there's a pretty good course in Scotland with OB on the right on the last 5 holes (The Old Course). Doesn't seem to be a weakness there either.

« **Reply #39 on:** January 31, 2006, 12:46:50 PM »

Chris,

I hope to make a firsthand evaluation of TOC this Aug. But clearly #17 uses the OB as a carry option. The choice of which letter to aim at is one I can't wait for.

Ease up guys! A weakness is not the same as a problem. It just is like improper punctuation in a well written paper.

« **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2006, 01:26:35 PM »

"I'm sorry but three holes in a row with water on the right is a sign of an amateur designer who may be more interested in the scene than the golf."

"I think the use of water on the right of all of those consecutive holes at Pebble is a WEAKNESS . I have only seen it on TV , but I think there are different angles relative to the fairway. In fact #18 is a classic "carry option" diagonal."

It is simple. When you are on the tee are you deciding how to use the water with your shot. If you only say " I must avoid it" ,I think that is a weaker form of design."

Mike,

What can I say? These Malonisms are getting stranger all the time.

Never mind that you haven't been there, which in itself is problematic. How do you know the constraints of what the architect(s) faced? Therefore, how do you know what other routings would have worked? What would you have preferred.

What you fail to understand, and it is evident throughout this thread, is that routings involve compromise.

While I think Pebble Beach is not quite in my top-most tier golf course, it is because of some of the mediocre holes (1,2,11,13 and 15) not along the coast. That's too many mediocre holes to be a great course. Yet there are some great holes, especially the coastal holes that are some of the best on the planet.

In actuality there are a number of holes with water on the right side including 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10. 17 has water directly behind (as does 7) and only 18 has water on the left. Would it have been nice to have a more variety on the ocean holes? Yes, but I don't know the development constraints. Without knowing these, you cannot possibly say what should have been done or if it was amateurish.

Given that Thomas, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump and Fownes were amateurs, I'm not so sure that's a bad thing in any case!

There are a lot of other problems with your analysis. I think you are focusing too much on Flynn's writings regarding recovery shots and see anything that does not allow such a shot as being a bad design feature. Flynn wasn't that simplistic and I don't think you should be as well. Try to think about what shot testing means (Tom and I have mentioned this to you a lot) and see if you can intellectualize a different approach.

« **Reply #41 on:** January 31, 2006, 01:28:36 PM »

"Ease up guys! A weakness is not the same as a problem. It just is like improper punctuation in a well written paper."

The weakness is in your position and not your punctuation, which by the way is pretty bad

Your argument is the problem.

« **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2006, 01:39:00 PM »

Wayne,

I asked Tom to define "shot testing ". Maybe you can do that for me.,;:/?.><

When a course is perceived to be among the very best there must be tiebreakers that put it in its place. The lack of variety in this stretch of Pebble is like the "total points versus common opponents" tiebreaker. It is well down the line but used when needed.

I'm sure if I spent some time there I could solve the problem

BTW "Maloneism" has an "e" in it!

« **Reply #43 on:** January 31, 2006, 01:51:00 PM »

"Tom,
Maybe you need to define "shot testing" for me. I don't want to disagree if in fact we agree."

Mayday:

What I mean by that is when an architect creates a situation when a golfer has no choice other than to just pull off a pretty well executed shot, generally in distance and generally for a driver. Generally, architects do this on tee shots for obvious reasons. The tee shot on the 18th at Merion East is an example of architecture that is designed to "shot test".

Let me ask you something, Mayday. And I want to remind you I'm being very serious here:

Do you think architects should design golf courses specifically for crazy people?

« **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2006, 01:56:58 PM »

Tom,

Thanks for the definition.

I think courses should be designed specifically for crazy people. Who else plays golf anyway ? The key psychological point is that none of us thinks we are crazy though.

« **Reply #45 on:** January 31, 2006, 02:09:02 PM »

"It is simple. When you are on the tee are you deciding how to use the water with your shot. If you only say " I must avoid it" ,I think that is a weaker form of design."

Mayday:

On PB's #8-10, I'll tell you what---if you stand on those tees and can only say to yourself "I must avoid it", here's what you do. Go to your bag, get out an old ball, tee it up and hit it right out into the water. Don't do anything really risky and stupid like hit the ball right along the waterline because you might miss and land on terra firma. Aim way out into the water.

Now get a nice new ball and tee it up and I doubt you'll say to yourself "I must avoid it" but if you do go to your bag and hit another one way out there into the water. Eventually this procedure should rid you of the thought "I must avoid it" but if not just continue to hit balls way out into that water and after a while you'll be out of golf balls and you'll have to go in and so there won't be any reason to even think about avoiding the water any more.

« **Reply #46 on:** January 31, 2006, 02:13:18 PM »

"I think courses should be designed specifically for crazy people. "

So do I Mayday. I believe if one can assume that God makes little green apples we are the only ones in life who are truly free and clear!

« **Reply #47 on:** January 31, 2006, 02:16:43 PM »

Mike,

What do you mean by a forced carry parallel to the line of play? This Maloneism is particularly baffling.

"Wayne,

I asked Tom to define "shot testing ". Maybe you can do that for me.,;:/?.><"

It really isn't a difficult concept.

Flynn, whom you and I know best, me far better than you

, and a few other architects liked to test a golfers shotmaking ability. Think of Huntingdon Valley, Cascades, Indian Creek, Rolling Green, etc. On these sort of championship caliber designs, you have to execute specific shots in order to maximize your position for the next shot. This could entail hitting a draw or fade. On fairways such as at HVCC, the ball position might even be opposite the necessary ball flight. Such an execution of the shot demand might lead to more roll (turbo boosts) or better approach angles to greens or both. Thoughtful designs can provide this. Throw in some perception miscues (6th at Indian Creek is an all-world example) or other deceptions (outside line of doglegs for instance) and you have a combination of physical and mental testing. That is, to me, the epitomy of design.

« **Reply #48 on:** January 31, 2006, 02:28:19 PM »

There is a technological limitation that has created confusion here. I can't seem to get all the words I want in the title line.

The second part of the title after " or " should read " a water hazard that is totally parallel to the line of play with no carry option".

Tom ,

I never suggested that the holes at Pebble were of this type. Pat Mucci brought them up.

A good example would be #2 at Stone Harbor. The water on the right is just something to avoid.

« **Reply #49 on:** January 31, 2006, 02:36:35 PM »

Isn't rough, trees, traps and water on the sides of any fairway something to avoid as well? Is your point (if there was one it is lost in all the circumlocution) that there is no recovery from water hazards? So that you are taking a line from Flynn and making it dogmatic? Flynn used water hazards in the line of play and on the periphery. He was an early creator of a water hazard fronting a green when he created the pond in front of 13 at Huntingdon Valley CC. He was not nearly as strict and dogmatic as you seem to be. Why are you so extremist about this design feature. If it exists, you think it is a poor design. Well its on a lot of golf courses you seem to like.

News:

mike_malone

Patrick_Mucci

mike_malone

Philippe Binette

Patrick_Mucci

mike_malone

Patrick_Mucci

mike_malone

mike_malone

PThomas

mike_malone

Kyle Harris

PThomas

CHrisB

mike_malone

wsmorrison

wsmorrison

mike_malone

TEPaul

mike_malone

TEPaul

TEPaul

wsmorrison

mike_malone

wsmorrison