[Matt_Ward]

I have read with great interest the comments of many who have argued about the unfairness of forced carries. This is especially so when no other options are available.

That leads me to two pet peeves I have.

First, I have an issue with forced lay-ups. There are a number of instances where architects force the player to lay-up because of physical features such as environmentally sensitive areas. At Stone Canyon, the new Jay Moorish design in Tuscon, there is a long par-4 on the back nine which calls for the player to hit no more than 250 yards from the back tees. You can't hit over the barranca because it is too wide unless your name is Jason Zuback. In essence -- the architect says hit no further than this point and STILL leaves you with a long approach.

Stephen Kay's new design The Links at Union Vale (NY) also has this element on a few holes. I'm sure there are plenty others.

I agree about the unfairness about forced carries without any options but I view forced lay-ups as nothing more than the same design flaw in reverse.

Quality golf design is about giving players options. Architects who design holes that mandate forced lay-ups are using a design element to inflate the qualities of a hole without providing viable options. It's a cheap gimmick meant to discourage the low handicap player who may want to play an aggressive line of play. It's nothing more than taking the club out of your hands.

My second peeve is with 90 degree dog-legs. The player is forced to play to the bend of the hole and go NO FURTHER! If the interior of the hole is not protected by trees or other means the integrity of the hole can be reduced to nothing as players routinely take the "short cut." Holes that are 45 degrees allow the player to maneuver the ball depending upon how much risk you desire to take.

I would be most interested in the comments of others. Thanks ...

[Bob_Huntley]

One of the great par 5's in golf is the 7th at Pine Valley. The big boys cannot hit driver here. Would you say, knowing that, it would annoy you?

[Matt_Ward]

Bob: I don't like holes where the architect deliberately eliminates options. If a hole must be played one particular way I believe it cuts down on playable options which makes the player think about different strategies.

I've played the 7th at PV and I don't believe it is one of the game's great par-5's because it eliminates options -- you can only hit to a specific point and that's it.

If someone can be critical about forced carries when other options are not presented than logically you must argue against forced lay-ups.

[APBernstein]

Matt:

Options are usually preferable in most situations, but is there no room for a hole such as the 7th at Pine Valley?  I see a lot of distaste on the site for holes where pure execution is needed.  Strategy is great and all, but I really enjoy the variety that holes like the 7th at Pine Valley bring to a course.

[Doug Wright]

Matt,

A good topic. On reflection forced layups are something I really don't like. One local course here (Arthur Hills Legacy Ridge N of Denver) has many very fine holes and two awful ones--one with a bad forced carry (unplayable for those who don't hit it long) and a bad forced layup. I also would add that many long par 5s seem to have "forced layups" where it just makes no sense to hit more than a medium iron to position for a third shot. Now some may call that "strategy" but I call it boring.  I quibble less, however, with a forced layup on a par 5 than with a forced layup on a par 4 because effectively the par 5 becomes a 2 shot hole with options on 2 shots while a par 4 is reduced to a one shot hole with one option. There are some forced layups that I've seen that do present options, however, such as [as I recall] cross bunkering at Muirfield that runs somewhat diagonal so you could figure out how much to bite off--more like your 45 degree analogy vs the 90 degree.

Doug

Doug

[Ed_Baker]

Matt:
So all these holes should have landing areas that allow for Drives of what? 275,300,325,350,400yds to be good?

It's not a good hole if you can "only" hit 3 wood or 1 or 2 iron of the tee and be left with what to the green? Driver off the deck,another 1 or 2 iron?

I don't mean to be sarcastic but I think I would have to disagree with your "pet peeve" as I understand it.I can think of scores of really good golf holes that limit the length of the tee shot by strategic design.

Does this mean that you are "peeved" at any par4 or par5 that you can't "blast" a driver?

Please elaborate.

[Doug Wright]

Example: par 4 3-4 iron off tee short of barranca, leaving 225-235 yds to green.

I don't think the issue is having to leave the driver in the bag, it's just a one dimensional hole. A par 4 reduced to a par 3.

By the way, did the lengthening of #18 at Southern Hills remove any strategy (ie any chance to carry the ditch in the middle of the fairway) or was it a layup in every case before it was lengthened?

[BY]

Some might call it formula design, but 3 of the cardinal rules of golf design are:

1. Try to avoid forced carries
2. Try to avoid sharp doglegs
3. Keep the driver in the golfers hands off the tee.

Most of us break the rules on a regular basis.

[GarySmith]

Matt,

Medinah's 16th would qualify as one of your pet peeve holes, as it is a forced lay-up (for most) to the bend. I was standing almost directly behind Norman at the 16th tee in the '90 Open, and he did cut the corner by going over the trees with a beautiful 3 wood. Irwin, in the same group, had to lay up with about a 3 iron to the bend. Nearly all that came through had to lay up off the tee. All in all, a very questionable hole. However, I do like to see long 2nd shots to plateau greens, and you get plenty there.

[john f]

Forced layups are my #1 complaint!! Love this thread. Why would someone design a par 5 which with a geat tee shot (275+) will give you 230 yrds in. Bigger the drive, shorter the 2nd. Sounds great. Tight driving hole, but definetly a driver off the tee. If you don't hit it 275, the forced layup starts at 140 yrds and runs to about 50 yrds in. Hit the ball 250, you've got 250 in or a layup to 140! Driver, wedge, 8 iron. Thank you Dr. Hurdzan. Not only did he do this, he didi it twice on the same course!! Cobblestone Creek outside Roch, NY. A very nice club, but w/ a few very poor holes.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What may not have been a forced lay up 70 years ago, could very well be a forced lay-up today.  The 15th at GCGC is a good example.  In this particular case, I don't think the architecture is flawed, that's just what the terrain provided, and technology has brought the barrier into play for long hitters, thus mandating a forced lay-up for them.

[Mike_Cirba]

I submit for your disapproval the Xth hole at "The Country Club of The Poconos at Big Ridge", a Jim Fazio design in PA.  (I can't remember the hole number as they've been re-numbered since building a clubhouse).

It is a par four of appromimately 370 yards, and is Unforgettable.

From the tee, the player can drive the ball no further than 150 yards before encountering wall to wall wetlands with woods thick to each side.

The wetlands, with high,marshy grasses growing to over 6 foot tall, extend to within 10 yards of the green's surface.

The proper play is to drive it 150, which leaves a 220 yard, blind approach over a mucky swamp.  

I cannot for the life of me understand how this hole was built.  The course covers a property that is fully 500+ acres!

[Matt_Ward]

I will say this again -- any person arguing that forced lay-ups are OK must then logically say that forced carries are OK too!

You cannot be inconsistent!

Great holes / courses always present various options. You can be aggressive or conservative. If a hole can only be played one particular way through an architectural contrivance such as forced lay-ups I have to begin to wonder if the architect really understands golf design or was forced to use a flawed routing plan in order to accomplish other goals (i.e. location of housing, clubhouse, entrance road, etc, etc).

Golf design is about strategy! It is about providing challenges through a variety of options to players with different skill levels.

Ed -- a good golf hole by definition must provide strategic options. That means if I choose an aggressive line of play and pull it off I will be rewarded. Conversely, if I fail the penalty will be swift for such an error.

The player must be presented with options. If a player chooses to "blast" a driver then so be it. But stopping the player from playing his choosen option through an architectural contrivance such as a forced lay-up is nonsensical! I am not advocating that an aggressive line of play be provided with a landing area as wide as Kansas. Smart architects tempt the player with these options. I have always enjoyed playing a Weiskopf / Moorish short par-4 where the player may go for the green from the tee but the risks are clear. You can also lay-up but that decision rests with the player not with the designer mandating it.

Mike's illustration of the hole at the Country Club of the Poconos is well taken. There is another hole that comes to mind in New Jersey at High Point GC in Montague. The 1st is a par-5 of about 520 yards. You hit from an elevated tee to a fairway that extends out about 350 yards. There is water all down the left side and the width of the hazard is anywhere from 100 to 125 yards.

Players who don't have adequate distance (my argument does not always pertain to the stronger player) must hit two short shots in order to get close enough to the water for a third which will be no less than 180-200 yards away. This is GOTCHA golf not real design.

[Dick_Groff]

Is a 220 yard approach shot over mucky swamps inherently unfair, or only when it is associated with a "forced" lay up off the tee?  Would it be as unfair if it were a par three?

As a player and not designer, I see no difference between a 150 yard tee shot with a 220 yard approach, and a 260 yard tee shot with the same approach, or the same distance on a par three.  The shot is unfair or it is not.  The tee shot that leads to it should not be a concern.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dick Groff;

The hole plays 9 iron, 2 iron for me.

There are NO options.  

The high-handicap player cannot make the second carry, and often inadvertedly drives into the hazard which is actually a much shorter reach than it appears.

You're welcome to it.  

[Jeff_McDowell]

Matt,

I agree with you on forced lay-ups being annoying, but I disagree that they always lack strategy.

I can easily come up with scenarios that have a forced lay-up and have strategy.

For example, the Red Wing Country Club in MN has a par 5 that forces you to hit an iron off the tee by having a sharp dog-leg to the left at 180 to 220 yards, but there is still strategy to the tee shot.  The player that can hug the dogleg on the left side can get home in two with a very good second shot.  The play that hits away from the dogleg can not get home in two.

Tilinghast wrote about this kind of hole in "The Course Beautiful". If my memory serves me right he titled the chapter The Cart Before the Horse, and he felt the option wasn't ideal, but it was acceptable under the right circumstances.

However, I agree with you completely when forced lay-ups or 90 degree doglegs lack strategy and\or dictate a shot type to the golfer.

Good topic.

[jglenn]

There is a very big difference between a forced lay-up and a forced carry.  A difference so defining that it makes it quite easy for me to argue for forced lay-ups and against forced carries.  

Everyone can manage a forced lay-up, but not everyone can manage a forced carry.

There are a few elements which are the heart of golf course architecture.  Strategy, perhaps, is one of them.  Aesthetics, safety, functionality are a few more.  But one of the more important is variety.  Not only within the golf course itself, but also from course to course.

What is easy to forget, amidst all the reverence we have towards the word "strategy", is that it is far from necessary - even yet, far from desirable - to have strategy, and choices, on every shot.

For the sake of variety, as much as giving players options and choices for their shots, I believe it no less important, and at the very least no less valid an architectural proposition, to give the player only one apparent choice.  Hence, the validity of the forced lay-up.

The only real sin of golf course architecture, from a perspective of playability, is not to force a player to hit one shot, but to force a player to hit a shot beyond his or her ability.  Essentially, giving no option at all.  Hence, the potential problem with a forced carry.

PS At any rate, a forced lay-up brings up the irresistible temptation to get as close to the edge as possible.  Isn't that strategy?

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt Ward;

I've played High Point in northern NJ, as well.  We could probably go on all day dissecting the bizarre architecture of that particular course.  

If nothing else, it certainly has a unique character.  

[George_Bahto]

Matt - with your length you're going to end up with more forced layups than most ....

:-)

for those whoe don't know, Matt hits it a loooooooong way - a sight to behold

[Dick_Groff]

To Mike Cirba:  No options?

Why not try a cut/draw seven iron off the tee and shorten the distance of the second shot?

I don't know your game, and intend no insult, but just because I may not have the variety of shots to make the hole interesting, does not mean it is a bad hole.

Maybe the designer demands more creativity than we are capable of.

[John_Sheehan]

I think some forced layup holes work, from a strategic design perspective, and some don't. The one Mike Cirba has described at at "The Country Club of The Poconos at Big Ridge," sounds at best to be a silly hole. There has to be something that is inherently interesting in the layup to make it work. The element of temptation to get close to the danger area is something that makes this kind of hole work.  But choosing between a nine iron layup or a cut/draw seven iron? I have difficulty taking seriouslu any argument in favor of this hole.  

Perhaps common sense, and an understanding of what makes golf shots thrilling and enticing could be used as guidelines when designing a forced layup hole.

The first guideline I would propose would be:  When the difference between the length of the layup and the length of the approach are that far out of whack, the hole loses appeal and interest.

That said, the best "forced" layup holes and the best 90 degree dog leg holes, IMO are those that do offer options.  Is Pebble #8 a forced layup? Is Pasatiempo #11 a forced layup?

A 90 degreee dog leg can be interesting from a strategic perspective, because you must either work the ball with the dogleg to maximize your distance and gain a strategic advantage, while risking going through the dog leg. You can bite off as much of the dog leg as you choose, taking a high risk direction, and reap the rewards of a well-executed risky shot.  Or you can fail. But the temptation is what makes this type of hole work from a strategic perspective, IMO.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dick;

You've gotta trust me on this one.  

Yes, I could presumably hit a purposeful worm-burner with a driver that covers 150 yards, as well, but I don't call that strategy.

The fairway is all of 30 yards wide, with inpenetrable woods on each side.  I'm not sure you'd want to work the ball too much from the tee.  

No matter what you do, you're left with a woozy doozy of a second shot to a smallish green.

Humorously, the 150 yard posts are visible, sticking their barbershop post heads up a full 50 yards within the wetlands.

[T_MacWood]

There is similar hole at Pinehurst #7. A forced short layup, followed by forced approach over wetlands, and if my memory serves me, the approach is normally blind over a linear mound at the edge of the wetland(why?). I played this hole with golfers of all skill levels and the opinions were unanimous, a goofy hole.

[George Pazin]

I've always felt that the bigger problem with forced layups is what happens when you mishit your tee shot(a common occurence for many players who shall remain nameless). A poor lie in the rough or behind a tree could very well mean that you are forced to chip out 20 yards to the end of the fairway. You can't even consider trying to work the ball down the fairway & are now left with a long approach. Still, I don't have a problem with occasional forced layups, I just don't like a steady diet of them.

For anyone who wants to constantly be subjected to forced layups, go play Tobacco Road with your girlfriend. I lasted 4 holes hitting with her from the forward tees before I got tired of hitting my 8 iron off the tee.:-) Then again, even from further back this course has tons of forced layups.

[John_Conley]

Because everyone hits it a different distance and has a different trajectory, it is impossible to design a hole with obstacles that affect all equally.

I look for "design" balance throughout the whole 18 instead of nitpicking one hole.  Since you (and maybe not others) are forced to lay-up on this hole, the course may offer other holes where you are able to carry something that others can't.

I agree that it is nice to play a course that lets you hit driver, but a bonus is when it tempts you to hit a driver to gain a large advantage and offers a much simpler route to compensate.

One peeve I have for modern designs is that some have forced carries of the same distance just to get the ball in play on several holes.  If you are a strong player, it may be 200.  A "Pro" tee make take it back to 230.  Members may be faced with 160.

Give me a course that has alternate routes to compensate for the forced carries and certain holes that offset the lost advantage for our "forced lay-upper".

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()