[tonyt]

Late last year, same topic. Great thread.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=20567

[TEPaul]

BobC:

Your post #13 just may be the single most incisive thumbnail sketch of an architect and his basic philosophy I have ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

Some will probably freak-out over your post but they shouldn't. Fazio is certainly no slouch but as you so informatively analyzed he does march to a different drummer along a different road.

Anyone should seriously consider how much of an influence his philosophy has had on the mentality and the preferences  of the modern golfer. It could be immense. After-all, he's not just some golf course architect---he's TOM FAZIO.  

[Ted Kramer]

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.  

Outstanding post Tom.
Thanks for all of your contributions here.

-Ted

[Jordan Wall]

What about a marginal putt?

Should a marginal putt leave you off the green or ten feet away?

[Dan Kelly]

What about a marginal putt?

Should a marginal putt leave you off the green or ten feet away?

Sure!

[Jim Thompson]

What about a marginal putt?

Should a marginal putt leave you off the green or ten feet away?

Jordan,

There was a time when a marginal putt could end up in one of the toughest bunkers of all time and most golfers venerate that hole to this day.  You may know it as THE ROAD HOLE.

Something to think about.

Cheers!

JT

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

George,

That's contradictory.

If the recovery is extremely difficult, then you've already punished the marginal approach shot.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

I think ANGC is the epitome of the penalized marginal shot.

I should have focused more on the approach shot.

Obviously, a mis-hit drive, leaving more distance to the green is punishment.

Let's focus on approach shots for the purpose of this discussion.

JES II,

You can't think of a marginal shot in the context of personalization, or relativity, or how it affects select groups of golfers.

You must view it in the context of the failure to integrate the shot with the architecture.

It's the failure of the golfer to interface with the architectural features, be they false fronts, roll offs, contours, etc., etc..

[JESII]

Well then, does the bogey golfer hit more than a couple shots per round that are above your marginal shot line?

Seriously, a good drive for a bogey golfer may well carry 180 yards and roll out to 220. If that shot came off your driver (even if straight) would you consider it anything better than marginal? How about from 150 in the fairway to a reasonably protected green (#9 at Seminole for our joint understanding). A 15-20 handicapper needs to hit a pretty damn good shot to get it on that green, but for you a marginal shot is probably still on the green. I see it as relative. I can understand not viewing it that way, but then the course would seemingly have to be appealing to one faction and unappealing to most all other factions.

[Jordan Wall]

Well then, does the bogey golfer hit more than a couple shots per round that are above your marginal shot line?

Seriously, a good drive for a bogey golfer may well carry 180 yards and roll out to 220. If that shot came off your driver (even if straight) would you consider it anything better than marginal? How about from 150 in the fairway to a reasonably protected green (#9 at Seminole for our joint understanding). A 15-20 handicapper needs to hit a pretty damn good shot to get it on that green, but for you a marginal shot is probably still on the green. I see it as relative. I can understand not viewing it that way, but then the course would seemingly have to be appealing to one faction and unappealing to most all other factions.

Jim (Pat too),

Wouldnt good architecture be so the higher handicap can be challenged with what is a marginal shot for them and the lower handicap be challenged for what is a marginal shot for them??  

Maybe, for instance, on a hole as mentioned above create short traps a high handicapper may struggle with a little bit but with a good shot can handle, and at the same time make the green slopey enough to where the low hanicapper gets down in two??

I see that as good architecure, except then it gets more complicated.  What happenes when the bunker shot becomes marginal...

[JESII]

Jordan,

I don't really have a position on this because I cannot get my hands around how you can proportionately penalize the scratch and the 20 when the good shot for the 20 is a marginal shot for the scratch. The premise holds that the 20 should not be penalized because he hit a good shot, but the scratch hits a marginal shot to the same spot and somehow he is now penalized. Any ideas?

[Jordan Wall]

Jim,

It's not possible I guess.
 

I mean, technically, on the green should not really be a marginal shot, even for the good player.  If they had a wedge or low iron in their hand I guess it might be different, but an 18 hcp. should be able to get the ball on the green 5 out 9 times with a wedge.  In that case a marginal shot for the better player with a wedge would be on the green but like I said that is only with a wedge, or maybe a 9-iron.

Now here is where tees come into play.  A wedge for a scratch player may be 135ish, and a wedge for an 18 hcp. may be around 105ish, and by that I mean yards.  I am a 5hcp. and hit my wedge about 142ish, but only if I need a draw or to hit it solid.  This means in order for the players to have the same club the tees have to be different.  Sometimes this does not happen as high hcp. players will try the tips... But, that is also another place  where a scratch player has yet another advantage.  Usually they have the discipline to club up and hit an extra club to hit a softer better shot, where as the high handicap will either not do that, or mentally wont think about it.

It's all confusing.

Let's talk about the better players, like 7 hcp. and below.  Its just too confusing and too many factors if you think about all players..

[JESII]

Jordan,

You are a good player.

How would you categorize a 125 yard wedge shot that you hit that ends up 30 feet from the hole on the top tier of a two tiered green with the pin on the bottom tier and you have to play 15 feet of break because the greens are pretty fast?

I am a scratch, and I would call that a bad shot because my chances of birdie are virtually zero and the chances of par are also pretty slim. This is where relativity comes in, for a 7 handicap, this result is less bad because of the difference in skill, but the 7 is punished more because of the difficulty of the putt.

[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.

George,

That's contradictory.

If the recovery is extremely difficult, then you've already punished the marginal approach shot.[/color]

If that is your definition of punish, then you are correct. I simply meant that I wouldn't have it be a "death penalty" type of punishment like water, desert, or OB - ie no lost ball.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

In regards to discussing appropriate penalties for Marginal misses, why not look to Pinehurst #2 or any of the modern courses that features shved banks leading to impossible short side chips or Mickelsonian Lob recoveries?  I'll bet the sand greens with the oil held a lot more marginal shots and aid recoveries as well.  Even money that someone brings up the ball & technology and today's green serface there as the great leveller.  Anyone seen the Penn & Teller show on Showtime?

Does the punishment fit the crime?  20 years for jaywalking?

Just as with prior U.S. Opens where the truly wayward shot was rewarded with a trampled down lie beyond the ropes, and this marginal missed tee shot was buried deeper than Saddam Hussein in the 6" rough, these so-called chipping errors maximize a marginal miss.  Down south, I pray for my missed approach shots to ricochet off of the banks into the rough so that I have a fighting chance to slide a lob or sand wedge under the ball.

Another example of misguided punishment can be found at this year's U.S. Open Site.  Hell, they even put out a book entitled "The Trees of Winged Foot".  Before WF removed the coniferous trees bordering the fairways, the marginal tee shot was punished with a pine tree up your back, while the snap hook was rewarded with a clean lie off of a parallel fairway.

How much to penalize the marginal (not awful) shot?  1/2 a stroke seems fair as the shot was 1/2 a success to begin with.

How to do it?

Tee Shots:  Utilize blindness where conditions permit.  Block clean approach shots from the "wrong" side of the rough with bunkers and other hazards.  Move the bunkers closer to the fairway edge.  Too many fairway bunkers are now saving bad shots due to mowing patterns removing them from the fairway edge.  Dig them deeper so as to allow only the most heroic shot from only one place within the bunker to reach the  green (Think Raynor's pilings at Westhampton).

Around the green:  More front to back green slopes that put short shots short-sided to front pins.  Eliminate the upslopes from the fronts of bunkers if the drainage issue can be resolved.  A just -missed shot trickles and catches the upslope on a grass bank for an easier pitch.  A mishit shot could bury in the middle of the bunker.  A wild miss could bury into a downhill lie with an uphill bank to carry to reach the green.

On the green:  More tiering.  More volcano's built into greens where only the best struck shots reach the pinnacle, while the weak are pushed further from the hole.  Maybe the inverse/reverse Biarritz?  Bigger greens.  What is more demoralizing than a 3 putt.  Certainly not a chip/pitch and a missed 5 footer.

Another thing, Dan Kelly's qoute about journalism "Afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted" is why I didn't pursue that field.  (Dan it's not personal)

I prefer "Reward the risk taker who succeeds.  Challenge those who do not succeed to do better.  Thin the herd."  OK maybe the 3rd portion of that mantra is a touch penal.  But graduate the punishment.  Don't give the 5 handicaper who just missed the green a downhill shot off of tight grass to a pin tucked behind a knoll 10 feet in front him where only one in ten tries is going to net a par.  That's not golf, it's 3 dimensional billiards.  And don't feed me the crap about subordinating my ego to shoot for the middle of the green and walk off feeling good about 2 putting from 20 feet.  If I want to be tutored (SIC) I'll take myself to the Veternarian.

Rant over.  You're away...

JWK  

[Jordan Wall]

Jordan,

You are a good player.

How would you categorize a 125 yard wedge shot that you hit that ends up 30 feet from the hole on the top tier of a two tiered green with the pin on the bottom tier and you have to play 15 feet of break because the greens are pretty fast?

I am a scratch, and I would call that a bad shot because my chances of birdie are virtually zero and the chances of par are also pretty slim. This is where relativity comes in, for a 7 handicap, this result is less bad because of the difference in skill, but the 7 is punished more because of the difficulty of the putt.

Jim,

I would forget about it and focus on the outt.  Another thing that high handicappers struggle with, letting go of bad shots.  They are going to happen, whether we like them or we dont.  Being mad sure is not going to help.  Sure, I may feel it could have been a better shot but I am not going to complain if my ball is on the green.  

I dont know, like I said before it is all so confusing.  
Some scratch players have different strengths than others.  I have a good short game, so getting down in two would be pretty easy on a putt like you mentioned.  I am however, a fairly weak iron player.  I may hit on the green 80% of the time from 100-120 yards.  I am happy with that.  Out of those 8 times (out of 10), about 1 or 2 are within five feet.  That would mean 30 feet would be a fine shot.

[Dan Kelly]

Another thing, Dan Kelly's qoute about journalism "Afflict the comfortable, comfort the afflicted" is why I didn't pursue that field.  (Dan it's not personal)

James -- Think nothing of it!

I didn't pursue that field, either.

It (sort of) pursued me!

Dan

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Dan -

One could say that I am Marginally involved in the Journalism field, but if it was a department store, I would be in the Toy Department asking you if you needed any assistance...

Just my shot...

JWK

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

A marginal shot transcends handicap, it's not a matter of relativity.

If you remain confused on the issue, please call TEPaul ... collect.

[JESII]

JES II,

A marginal shot transcends handicap, it's not a matter of relativity.

If you remain confused on the issue, please call TEPaul ... collect.

No answer out at the farm Pat, Tommy must be out on tractor trying to find a green site or two. Hence it's on you to explain your statement quoted above. I'm ready to learn.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

A marginal shot is one which the architecture attempts to frustrate or penalize.

It is not a function of handicap, nor is it a matter of relativity, it's rather absolute.

A ball hit to a false front will usually impact the green and roll back down into the fronting fairway or rough.
It doesn't matter who hit it, or how well.

What has happened is that the architect has created a feature meant to produce a predictable result on a ball not properly flighted.

A marginal shot, in the context of this thread, is one that doesn't interface positively with the architecture and its intent.

I hope that helps.

P.S. Stop calling TEPaul collect.

[JESII]

Thank you for that Patrick, and now if you take that explanation back to your initial question I think you'll have your answer.

Always glad to be of service.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

I guess you didn't read more than the opening sentence in the initial post, the part about accomodating versus penalizing it.

[JESII]

should it be penalized or accomodated by the architecture ?

A marginal shot is one which the architecture attempts to frustrate or penalize[/color]

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 ?

A ball hit to a false front will usually impact the green and roll back down into the fronting fairway or rough.
It doesn't matter who hit it, or how well.

What has happened is that the architect has created a feature meant to produce a predictable result on a ball not properly flighted.

A marginal shot, in the context of this thread, is one that doesn't interface positively with the architecture and its intent.[/color]

Looks pretty clear to me Pat, I'd say you nailed it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JES II,

Read the part about the ODG's, and then interpolate the part that it ain't bein done that way no more.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()