The transitioned function of PVGC's cross features

[TEPaul]

It seems to me there could've been no possible way George Crump conceived of the function of his multiple cross features at PVGC as affecting a good tee shot. But certainly in recent years that's precisely what their function has been for good players. Basically the cross features on many of the holes at PVGC took the driver out of the hand of the good long player.

It was well known that Crump loved his driver (it was called "Bolivar") and the driver generally, and encouraged its use at PVGC---probably almost forced it use on many of the holes. The idea of many of his cross features was to put real pressure on the second shot if the drive with a driver was not a good one. Certainly the primary example was the 100 yard long "Hell's Half Acre" bunker on #7.

Tillinghast takes some credit for the conception and suggestion of this feature on the 7th hole at PVGC and one can see from Tillinghast treatise on the so-called "Three shotter" that the point of such a hole and strategy was to almost force ("shot test") a good drive and a good brassie just to negotiate the cross hazard in two shots. Anything less was purposefully intended to turn the hole into a par 6. The cross hazard was also intended to completely preclude any golfer from getting home in two shots (hence Tillinghast logic of the exact meaning of a "three shotter").

With the added length on a number of the holes at PVGC last year the driver is back in the hands of the good long player to a large extent but the original purpose or strategy of Crump's some of Crump's cross hazards to be negotiated in two really good shots or at least in two shots followed by a somewhat mishit drive does not now exist (without a badly missed drive) and certainly couldn't again.

Is the strategy of forcing a good long player to think twice about reaching one of the cross hazards on his tee shot just as valid or perhaps even better strategically than Crump's old strategic intent of basically forcing two good shots---with the tee shot invariably being the driver?

Whichever is best or better there's no question at all the old cross hazard features at PVGC have transitioned in many interesting ways over the decades. Their functionality has always been very evident although it did change dramatically in a strategic sense over the years.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

Good answer!

"Requiring two good shots to clear a cross hazard is much better.  This isn't strategic either.  But at least it doesn't unfairly penalize the better player.  It penalizes the lesser player.  And if you have to choose the lesser of two evils, penalizing the lesser player is the better choice."

You're right, requiring two great shots to clear a cross hazard isn't particularly strategic. What it is basically is the concept of "shot testing" that was a very popular thing to do architecturally back in the old days at a course designed for the type of player that PVGC originally was!

Flynn did the same thing occasionally. It wasn't strategic in the sense we on here think of "strategic"---it was what they referred to as out and out "shot testing". If you chose not to attempt the "test" the strategy was to lay up somehow with the likelihood of dropping one shot!!    

But back then the "match play" mentality probably reigned a whole lot more than it does today. If a golfer chose to lay up with the likelihood of dropping one shot he could expect to make it up by a great pitch and putt or he might expect to actually beat his opponent if his opponent accepted the "test" and failed at it and lost more than one shot!

Essentially this was what they used to refer to back then as the "tortoise and the hare" analogy!

[tonyt]

As a lesser player myself, I like the holes where I know on the tee that I require at least an average drive (or tad better) to earn the right to stand in the fairway and muse over a carry decision. Those of us (at least 70-80% of golfers) in this predicament are aware that a slightly more imperfect execution of the tee shot will render us short of the intended trouble in two.

And it is strategic. Because part of strategy throughout the round is to occasionally tell the golfer that execution and not choice is part of what is making him think. Forced execution that is plainer and doesn't encourage any thought until the shot of finality is that which exhibits less strategy. Any device that makes a golfer think in advance and over more than one shot deserves mention as a thought provoking and potentially positive golfers' game management element.