[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Cohn,

Let me include Par 3's in the list.

# 9 at Maidstone,

# 8 and # 10 at Friar's Head

# 13 at Seminole.
Non par 3's, # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 6, # 11, # 14, # 16, # 18.

# 18 at Forest Hills

# 17 at Sebonack.

Non-par 3's, # 3, # 10 and # 16.

Why is a better player entitled to every advantage ?
And, how is an advantage to the inferior player ?

If that's what you want, let's just award the guy with the lowest index the trophy or money, and sit in the clubhouse.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim Gavrich,

What's your handicap ?

My index is +0.9, although it's probably closer to "scratch" or 1.  I play most of my summer golf on a course with a 75.3 rating and a 146 slope (so a 76 there is like a 72 at many other courses).  My handicap is indicated as lower than it really is; I've only broken 70 once.

My strength is ball-striking, and specifically irons.  Naturally, I'd be upset to hit what I thought was a perfectly good shot, only to find my ball 20 yards short of or beyond the flag, without any way of knowing for sure what the distance was.  I'd also not be liking my chances on the two-putt, seeing as that's the biggest weakness in my game  .  Perhaps this is the cause of my feelings on this issue...

[Matt_Cohn]

"Matt Cohn,

Let me include Par 3's in the list.

# 9 at Maidstone,

# 8 and # 10 at Friar's Head

# 13 at Seminole.
Non par 3's, # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 6, # 11, # 14, # 16, # 18.

# 18 at Forest Hills

# 17 at Sebonack.

Non-par 3's, # 3, # 10 and # 16."

I can't wait until I get to play all of those very private courses, along with Pine Valley, Cypress and NGLA, so that I can fully participate in this group! I'm joking, kind of. I can't argue or agree with you as I've never seen any of those par 3's in person.

>>>Why is a better player entitled to every advantage ?

The better player is more skilled. That *is* their advantage so naturally they possess that advantage on most shots. If you're good enough to hit a golf ball 10 feet from the hole every time, but you can't figure out where the hole is to within 40 feet, then the advantage of skill is lessened. What's good about holes that lessen the advantage of skill?

>>>And, how is an advantage to the inferior player ?

I think you missed a word here. I'm not sure what this means

>>>If that's what you want, let's just award the guy with the lowest index the trophy or money, and sit in the clubhouse.

Only if we all get to sit around and debate the architecture of the course that we didn't get to play.

Cheers,
Matt

[JESII]

Tim,

Do you think it would be a challenge to seek out indicators as to where the pin might be? Do you think that challenge could play into your hands? I think uncertainty is a very difficult obstacle in hitting a golf ball, what could be done to reduce your uncertainty? Maybe the reality is, that this is the type of hole where the good iron player / good putter has an advantage over you, because, as you say above, putting is not your strong suit.

[Dan_Lucas]

Reading through these posts it seems to me the ones wanting exact yardages probably never use the ground game unless inside 30 yds. or so. If they did, they would know that to use the ground game you need to judge the distance to a particular slope you wish to use to affect your ball the proper way. There are no yardages posted to a downslope 30 yds. in front of the green. Using the ground by definition is using more judgement and strategy than the man who wishes to fly the ball within 5 yds. of the pin.

This thread exemplifies better than any I've seen how far we have gotten from the real game of golf. IMO if the ground game is not an option for you, then you can't really appreciate the greatness of the master architects because YOU only use one form of approach, the high road.

[John Kirk]

It's a matter of taste.  I don't always play for the best possible score.  I don't have to have a pin sheet or even yardage markers to help determine my next play.  Sometimes it just more fun, and perhaps better for your game in the long run, to test your own judgements.  

[JESII]

I guess another question Tim, is, what do you do on the tee of driving holes when there are multiple bunkers out there with no confirmed yardage to, or to carry, any of them?

[Eric_Terhorst]

Naturally, I'd be upset to hit what I thought was a perfectly good shot, only to find my ball 20 yards short of or beyond the flag,

Tim, what if the wind comes up the moment after you hit your "perfectly good shot" to leave you staring at a long putt? Are you still upset, since it is Mother Nature conspiring to foil your perfection instead of the architect?

I fail to see how one's handicap matters in the answer to this question, except that the expectation implied by your question suggests a bit of arrogance--how dare you design a hole that is meant to deceive ME, a 1 handicap??

Last summer I played with a guy, a stranger to me, who kept announcing yardages he had measured with his device.  I found it distracted me from my purpose--i.e., to have fun trying to figure out what kind of shot I wanted to hit.  These questions to me are at the heart of what makes golf great.  I resisted the temptation to tell him to shut the f- up, and asked him nicely to stop.  Alas, even that did not completely dissuade him...

Is that who you want to be?

[JESII]

Eric,

While I suspect it was not me you are pointing to with the query as to the validity of ones handicap in this discussion, I do think it is unrealistic for a +1 handicap to think having exact yardage handed to them on a 200 yard par three. Es[ecially when they have other options to help find a closer anwer to the exact yardage.

[Pete Lavallee]

Thanks to Tim for starting an extremely interesting disscussion. In the end it boils down to which of two distinct skill sets is more valued:

Being able to hit each iron a precise distance, and therefore knowing that distance to maximize your results.

Or, being able to hit each iron 10 different distances, in 1 yard increments, using your all of your senses to help make this decision.

I know which one I would choose if my families livelyhood depended on it. Of course the other option might be more fun.

Is the purpose of golf to have fun or to play it to the best of your abilities and occasionally win?

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,

Do you think it would be a challenge to seek out indicators as to where the pin might be? Do you think that challenge could play into your hands? I think uncertainty is a very difficult obstacle in hitting a golf ball, what could be done to reduce your uncertainty? Maybe the reality is, that this is the type of hole where the good iron player / good putter has an advantage over you, because, as you say above, putting is not your strong suit.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear in my initial question.

The 14th at Hidden Creek is said to provide NO (that is to say, zero,[0]) INDICATION of whether the pin is on the green.

The obvious conclusion that follows: There is NO (that is to say, zero,[0]) WAY to to tell whether the pin is 45 yards from the front edge, or 5 yards from the front edge.

My three questions:
1. How is that great architecture?
2. Why do we marvel at the architect creating a situation where the only way to get the ball close to the hole is by a lucky guess?
3. How does my suggestion of a three (3)-flag system so very atrocious, and how does it turn the game into a game of numbers (as has been suggested)?

[JESII]

I think you read too much into Ran's words.

If my eyes are capable of deciphering yardages down to the 5 yard window by looking at the flag, I will have an advantage over you.

How would Ran account for that in his review?

[Brent Hutto]

I have no problem with visual deception, but if the success of your shot comes down to pure guesswork, I don't see how that makes the shot "fun" or "interesting."  Three different types of pin/flag (for front, middle, and back) does not seem unreasonable, or detrimental to the integrity of the game

Thoughts?

I believe that there's a fun game to be played by freeing ones self from the numbers mentality. Shots with visual deception involved can add to ones enjoyment of that feel and eyeballs style of play. Striving to eliminate any trace of uncertainty as to the nature of the shot required is a quintessentially modern American wet blanket idea that will eventually suck all the life of the game as it existed for its first few hundred years.

That said, an approach shot to a 51 yard deep green that is situated so that even a practiced eye will have little clue about that day's hole location is at best something to be relished the first time one plays the hole. Maybe. More likely it will work out to be a trumped-up bit of "quirk" that offers little reward and considerable annoyance to 99% of golfers who play the hole.

Whether coded flags are necessary (or even desirable) is debatable. I would think that some indication, even a simple declaration of "Front", "Middle" or "Back" from the starter, would be highly preferable to a blind guess. Surely the regular players of the course have some system for communicating a general idea of the hole location...

[Tim Gavrich]

While I suspect it was not me you are pointing to with the query as to the validity of ones handicap in this discussion, I do think it is unrealistic for a +1 handicap to think having exact yardage handed to them on a 200 yard par three. Especially when they have other options to help find a closer anwer to the exact yardage.

When did I say that I demanded an exact yardage?  I am asking to know whether the pin is in the front, middle, or rear third of a 50+ yard deep green.  That's all.

I'm sure the following comment will be taken the wrong way, but I believe that not having any idea where the pin is favors the higher handicappers, because they hit their irons less consistently the same distance.

Please do not confuse me with a new-age golf brat who throws a hissy fit if he doesn't know absolutely everything about every shot he encounters, and who adopts a "woe is me" attitude in the face of the slightest bit of uncertainty.  

[Matt_Cohn]

"Knowing where the hole is" does not mean having precise yardages, forsaking the ground game, or whining at unlucky bounces.

"Knowing where the hole is" means that the smart golfer is able to figure out what he needs to do to get his ball close to the hole or to his target.

This does not require a yardage, it doesn't require an unobstructed view, and it doesn't require flying the ball to the hole, either!

[Brent Hutto]

"Knowing where the hole is" means that the smart golfer is able to figure out what he needs to do to get his ball close to the hole or to his target.

So just how relative are you willing for "close to the hole" to be? What if it were a totally blind shot over a 20' hill to a hidden green that was 60 yards wide and 60 yards deep? With no knowledge of hole location even the smartest golfer in the world will have to settle for being, on average, more than 50 feet and probably 100 feet or more from the hole.

Let's say it's not a 200-yard Par 3 but rather an approach shot that's only 120-140 yards after a well-struck drive. Is it still going to be fun in some way to hit a short iron over that hill knowing that the only way you're going to get within 40 feet of the hole is by a lucky blind guess?

Now imagine the same shot except you know in advance which of four quadrants contain that day's hole location: back-left, back-right, front-left, front-right. Isn't attempting a blind shot to a target that rewards you with a 30-40 foot birdie putt more satisfying than attempting the same physical shot with little hope of even being in the same Zip code with the hole no matter what you do?

In other words, at some point hitting a simple shot to an enormous undifferentiated target quits being either quirky or challenging and becomes a silly gimmick. In my mind the only question is where the fourteenth at HC falls on that continuum. I'll have to trust those who have played there a few times to suggest the answer to that question.

An analogous situation would be a hole built in a flat pasture where the fairway is 120 yards wide but the green is large, flat and round, offering no particular advantage to an approach from any particular angle. The notion of strategic width doesn't apply to a hole like this. There is some minimum level of benefit necessary for "strategy" to come into play. Otherwise you just aim for the middle and any shot works as well as another.

[JESII]

Brent,

Good points.

I would reiterate what I said a few posts ago with regards to #14 at Hidden Creek. I believe Ran's words are taken a bit too literally. I do not believe there is "no, as in zero, as in 0" chance of determining the hole location to a reasonable degree.

As to your example of the totally, completely blind 140 yard shot to a 60 yard X 60 yard green, no I do not think it would be any better a situation if I knew the hole was in the back-left quadrant, or whereever it might be. I think it that one, the fun would be in climbing up the hill and attempting to line up a tree in the background or a bush on the hill or some other thing. Have you been to Royal New Kent...think #8. A cool hole that should be well spaced from the next example like it.

[Matt_Cohn]

Brent,

I definitely agree with you. There's a balance. Uncertainty on a long second shot on a par-5 is much different than a blind 100-yard wedge shot to a huge green.

Obviously it's up to the architect to strike the right balance between creating enough uncertainty to produce interest and excitement, and providing enough knowledge and visual cues to avoid creating a frustrating situation where the golfer doesn't have the information he needs to plan his shot.

"In other words, at some point hitting a simple shot to an enormous undifferentiated target quits being either quirky or challenging and becomes a silly gimmick. In my mind the only question is where the fourteenth at HC falls on that continuum. I'll have to trust those who have played there a few times to suggest the answer to that question."

Exactly. And the definitions of "simple", "enormous", and "undifferentiated" vary with the length of the shot and the design of the hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

>>>Why is a better player entitled to every advantage ?

The better player is more skilled.

That *is* their advantage so naturally they possess that advantage on most shots. If you're good enough to hit a golf ball 10 feet from the hole every time,

Matt,  You're being absurd and your example above is ridiculous.

NOBODY hits a ball 10 feet from the hole every time.

Please couch your position in reality, not fantasy.

but you can't figure out where the hole is to within 40 feet, then the advantage of skill is lessened.

NO, it's not.  According to you, you still have the ability to hit the ball where you want to.  Are blind holes that perplexing to you ?  Do you not know the distance to the center of the green ?  Since you do, and since you're so accurate, hit it to the center of the green and you won't have a very long putt.

What's good about holes that lessen the advantage of skill?

# 3 at NGLA is world class, how does that hole lessen the advantage of a superior player ?


>>>And, how is that an advantage to the inferior player ?

I think you missed a word here. I'm not sure what this means

"that" meaning the blindness

>>>If that's what you want, let's just award the guy with the lowest index the trophy or money, and sit in the clubhouse.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
I know you don't usually get a chance to have a look at cup placements before one of your high school matches, and it almost never happens for an ordinary round of golf either.
My point: when you play for some incredible amount of money or amateur prestige you'll know where the flags are.

Playing the occasional hole when you don't know where the pin is in relation to its surrounds is good practice, and proficiency at choosing correctly is a confidence builder.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Naturally, I'd be upset to hit what I thought was a perfectly good shot, only to find my ball 20 yards short of or beyond the flag, without any way of knowing for sure what the distance was.  

You should be upset.   At your judgement skills.
Since you know the distance to the center of the green and the great majority of greens are 24-30 yards in depth, if you hit to the center, you won't have a very long putt.

I'd also not be liking my chances on the two-putt, seeing as that's the biggest weakness in my game  .  Perhaps this is the cause of my feelings on this issue...

What happens when you mishit or misjudge a shot and it ends up next to the hole.  Do you whine that it's unfair ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

In terms of my original, specific question, if there is no way whatsoever to tell whether the pin is 10 yards onto the green or 40 yards (which is the implication of the passage I highlighted), that is neither strategically interesting nor a challenge to one's judgement skills, unless the player happens to be a robot.

Would you classifiy the 17th at Prestwick, the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11th and 16th at NGLA strategically uninteresting holes ?

The 5th at Old Marsh ?

The 9th and 10th at Shinnecock ?

The 1st, 2nd, 12th, 15th 17th and 18th at Pine Valley.

The 1st, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 17 and 18th at ANGC ?

I have not had the privilege of playing any of those golf courses.  

Why would you want to, they don't provide the hole locations for you, something you feel is necessary in order to enjoy golf.

Perhaps I would feel differently after doing so.  

But if the only way to play the holes successfully is dumb luck (vis à vis the approach shot), then I have a problem with that.

How is it dumb luck ?
Do you stand in the fairway having no idea as to where the green is ?

What's wrong with architecture creating an unplanned situation ?  A long putt, chip or pitch.

I would cease to have a problem if there was a red-white-blue flag system.  I have yet to hear why that is such an outrageously unreasonable and detrimental-to-the-game request.

It's the whine of a whimp.
The "ME" generation, the need for everything to be layed and and provided for you.

But, let's address it from another perspective, that of the superintendent.

Just let one of those special, bright, whimpy flags be off the mark for some reason and the howling from your ilk is deafening.

Why burden the superintendent with the additional work of putting markers on the flagsticks that precisely indicate where the hole is cut ?

If you can see the flagstick, you should be able to judge where the best spot to approach it from, on the green, should be, and therefore aim for that spot.

If you can't see the flagstick, what difference does it make ?

[Tim Gavrich]

Naturally, I'd be upset to hit what I thought was a perfectly good shot, only to find my ball 20 yards short of or beyond the flag, without any way of knowing for sure what the distance was.  

You should be upset.   At your judgement skills.

GAVRICH: Am I supposed to see through the ground?  Am I supposed to be 20 feet tall?  I said that I had no way of knowing where the pin is.  That means that neither does anyone else (for the sake of argument).

Since you know the distance to the center of the green and the great majority of greens are 24-30 yards in depth, if you hit to the center, you won't have a very long putt.

I'd also not be liking my chances on the two-putt, seeing as that's the biggest weakness in my game  .  Perhaps this is the cause of my feelings on this issue...

What happens when you mishit or misjudge a shot and it ends up next to the hole.  Do you whine that it's unfair ?

GAVRICH: That isn't the issue being discussed, but I would not whine.  Good shots shouldn't be punished in the name of leveling the playing field.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The question is, do you believe that visual judgement of distance and location should be a required skill?

It was until the late 50's early 60's.

Some people would say, "Yes - that skill should be part of the game, just like reading break and judging pace on putts."

Others would say, "No - the golfer is entitled to know the challenges in front of him.

Who says that ?
That thinking would eliminate ALL blind shots and Blind holes.
Only an idiot would say that.

The real test is whether the player can then correctly pull off the shot."

Doesn't a hole become less strategic when the player is lacking information about it?

NO.

Are # 1, # 2, # 3, # 4, # 5, # 7, # 8, # 11, # 12, # 16 and
# 18 at NGLA less strategic because the information isn't totally complete ?

The Hidden Creek #14 review concludes, "The less is more principle applied here helps reinforce that the ground is one's friend at Hidden Creek."

OK, but how are you supposed to use the ground to your advantage when you don't know where you want your ball to go?

The green and flagstick are sitting there right in front of you.

Do you require that a groove be dug from the tee to the green with a backstop behind the green ?

How are you supposed to use anything to your advantage when your target is unknown?

Duh, let's see, the scorecard and the official marker in the ground says 200 yards.  Wow, that's really confusing.

So now you'll have to adjust your shot to where you perceive the flagstick to be.  But, if you go for the center of the green, you won't be wrong by much.

Doesn't it result that when you're less able to use course features to your advantage, the strategic element is diminished?

Not at all.
Have you ever heard anyone claim that NGLA is lacking in the strategic elements ?

You're not playing in a vacuum.
The degree to which, and the number of times that the information isn't TOTALLY COMPLETE AND AVAILABLE, just like you like it, isn't that significant.

Perhaps it's a generational issue.

Some have played before any yardage indicators were inserted and before any aid was used to indicate hole locations.  Yet, the game thrived during those times.

If you removed the above "aids", wouldn't the golfer best able to "read" the architecture and use their brains be rewarded, while dullards would be relagated to remain disadvantaged ?

[JESII]

Tim,

Your gripe seems more in line with the scenario Brent Hutto laid out, #14 at Hidden Creek does not fit...one does have the ability to determine the hole location if one tries hard. I think Ran's words should be read as illustrating #14 as an example of avoiding the all too common practice of framing a green for the sake of visual depth perception as well as superficial beauty.

As to the example Brent laid out, would you be OK with this if it happened once every so often to keep you on your toes? Or is this taboo and should never be used? In which case, stay away from RCD and RNK.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()