Forced Carries . . . the New Cop Bunkers?

[TEPaul]

""Multiple tees provide a rather ineffective antidote to the spread of the forced carry.  If the multiple tees are too far apart then we arent really talking about the same course, are we?  If they are close together, then they provide the duffer with no real relief from the forced carry in question."

DavidM:

If the multiple tees are too far apart on forced carry holes we aren't playing the same course are we? David, do you expect that some lady should play the same tees that a Tiger Woods plays? Of course she's playing the same golf course but in some cases from about 1500 yards less, as it should be to hopefully create commensurate challenges to differing levels of players!

If the tees are too close together then of course they don't provide the duffer with any real relief from the forced carry in question and that's precisely why multiple tees in forced carry situations placed to reflect the commensurate challenge for all levels ARE an EFFECTIVE ANTIDOTE.

[TEPaul]

As far as not responding to your threads and posts if I don't agree with them or not reading them, that's just not the way it goes on here. If someone creates some premise and others don't agree with it, even calling it preposterous that's just the way it is. If you're looking for some place for everyone to agree with everything you say then GOLFCLUBATLAS.com probably isn't the place to be posting and discussing. I'm certainly not trying to insult you, just to tell you I completely disagree with a post you made in response to something I said about the question of this thread to the extent I thought your response was preposterous. In the post above I hope I explained why I think that.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

""Multiple tees provide a rather ineffective antidote to the spread of the forced carry.  If the multiple tees are too far apart then we arent really talking about the same course, are we?  If they are close together, then they provide the duffer with no real relief from the forced carry in question."

DavidM:

If the multiple tees are too far apart on forced carry holes we aren't playing the same course are we? David, do you expect that some lady should play the same tees that a Tiger Woods plays? Of course she's playing the same golf course but in some cases from about 1500 yards less, as it should be to hopefully create commensurate challenges to differing levels of players!

If the tees are too close together then of course they don't provide the duffer with any real relief from the forced carry in question and that's precisely why multiple tees in forced carry situations placed to reflect the commensurate challenge for all levels ARE an EFFECTIVE ANTIDOTE.

Tom-

  But consider, in the case of my example, Congressional's 18th holes--either one of them.  Both require, from all teeboxes, a forced carry over water.  

I read somewhere a quote from Bobby Jones which related to a water hazard being like a car accident--final, and a bunker giving the player a chance for recovery.  Now, what do you think is an effective solution for the 85 year old player who hits driver about 50 yards?  

I like to think about all levels of player being challenged effectively, but I just don't think having the same 85 year old hit 4,5 balls into a pond fronting the green because they can't make the carry is fun--to watch or be "that guy".  

What would you do?  

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

Enough of the tears on the poor old 85-year-old who can't carry the H20. I mean -- you have me in tears of laughter!

How bout the folks at Congressional build a tee box about 50 yards away from the green and let it go at that?

Short of that -- how bout giving the gent a couple of free coupons for more balls.

Short of that -- contact the priest / rabbi and ask for divine intervention.

Doug, let me clue you in -- there are people who can't hit the Kansas stateline if you parked them on the Oklahoma side.
 

[TEPaul]

"Now, what do you think is an effective solution for the 85 year old player who hits driver about 50 yards?"

Doug;

I sure don't want to sound callous here, believe me, but if any player, 85 years of age or otherwise, is not CAPABLE of hitting his driver 50 yards I can think of a number of effective solutions but none of them have anything to do with architecture!  

Forced water carries are definitely intimidating for some golfers but even Ross who really didn't like them said it was perfectly acceptable for a golf course to have one or up to two of them. Actually designing for the lowest common denominator is probably something some courses should do but I sure wouldn't want to see all of them have to do it. It's never been that way and there's probably no good reason to start now. Limit them, at best, but don't do away with them altogether.  

[DMoriarty]

Doug,  

I generally agree with your viewpoint, and frankly I do not quite get the mindset of the Matt Wards and Adam Claymans who seem to have the desire to simply drive a segment of short hitters right out of the game.   So much for Matt's mantra about considering all levels of golfers when evaluating a course . . .

One point of departure, though . . . you write:

I am a bit ambivalent about forced carries; on one hand, for the better players, they provide a challenge, but for the duffer, they do more harm than good.

my bold added

I just do not understand how most forced carries challenge the better players.    Take Matt, he hits the ball a long ways and rarely mishits it substantially short of his usual carry distance.  So forced carries are pretty irrelevant to his game.    This is why I have a hard time understanding Matt's position . . . why does he so love features which often kill the hack, but almost always leave the better player unscathed?
___________________________
 

David, do you expect that some lady should play the same tees that a Tiger Woods plays? Of course she's playing the same golf course but in some cases from about 1500 yards less, as it should be to hopefully create commensurate challenges to differing levels of players!

Tom, there is no reason that a course couldnt be designed so that Tiger and some lady (I assume you mean a lesser player than Annika) could both play the same tee and both have an enjoyable round of golf.  Sure, one would hit a lot more shots than the other, but what is wrong with that?  

That being said, I never suggested that everyone play off the same tee.  What I said was that multiple tees do not solve the problem of forced carries.  

Instead of addressing my point, you simply hope that multiple tees "create commensurate challenges to differing levels of players"  Unfortunately Tom, when it comes to dealing with forced carries, multiple tees oftentimes do not create commensurate challenges for different levels of players.  

For example,  when a forced carry is completely eliminated from some tees but not others, this surely does not present commensurate challenges.   Take No. 14 at Rustic Canyon . . . from the back two sets of tees the golfer drives over a wash which parallels the fairway, giving the golfer the choice of biting off has much as he wants.  But the minimum carry is well over 200 yds, the the front tees are located on the fairway side of the wash.  Now the hole works very well from either set of tees, but in no way does the golfer face "commensurate challenges" from each of these tees.  

If the tees are too close together then of course they don't provide the duffer with any real relief from the forced carry in question and that's precisely why multiple tees in forced carry situations placed to reflect the commensurate challenge for all levels ARE an EFFECTIVE ANTIDOTE.

Tees close together do not provide real relief, therefore tees further apart will provide real relief??  This is illogical.  Again, you assume the forward tee will present a commensurate challenge even though this is unlikely.  

As far as not responding to your threads and posts if I don't agree with them or not reading them, that's just not the way it goes on here. If someone creates some premise and others don't agree with it, even calling it preposterous that's just the way it is. If you're looking for some place for everyone to agree with everything you say then GOLFCLUBATLAS.com probably isn't the place to be posting and discussing. I'm certainly not trying to insult you, just to tell you I completely disagree with a post you made in response to something I said about the question of this thread to the extent I thought your response was preposterous. In the post above I hope I explained why I think that.

Disagreement?   Tom, I invite and welcome disagreement from anyone interested in discussing the topic.   Nothing bores more than a conversation where everyone agrees.  

But you didnt bother disagreeing.  Rather you haughtily and summarily dismissed my threads as dealing with "small and insignificant little points" which "in reality, [arent] even worth thinking about, much less discussing."

I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion.  Participate all you want, but if think that participating is a waste of your time, I am not going to argue with you.  

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Wake up and smell the coffee ... the next thing you know someone will opine about a golfer who's attached to life support and can't even put a tee in the ground should have consideration as well.

This is utterly hilarious -- the common man theory carried to absurd heights.

No David -- I am not against the short hitter as you may think.

For once I agree with Tom Paul -- other teeing grounds can accomplish the element in accomodating varying talent levels. For those who can't hit the ball past their shadow might I suggest video golf.

[DMoriarty]

Matt, I'll bet there are multiples more golfers who hit the majority of their drives less than 150 yards, as compared to the numberof golfers who hit the majority of their drives over 300 yds.  You certainly do not ignore the long hitters, so why ignore the very short hitters?  

I havent taken anything anything to absurd heights.  But since you suggest it, let's try it and see where it gets us?

Imagine if Bethpage Black cut all the rough between the tees and fairways to fairway height.   Also imagine that they changed nothing else.  

Would the quality of the course have changed?
How would the new mowing lines alter the challenges the course presents to a golfer of your caliber?  
How about a bogey golfer?
How about an elderly golfer who has played the course regularly since opening day?

[Doug Braunsdorf]

"Now, what do you think is an effective solution for the 85 year old player who hits driver about 50 yards?"

Doug;

I sure don't want to sound callous here, believe me, but if any player, 85 years of age or otherwise, is not CAPABLE of hitting his driver 50 yards I can think of a number of effective solutions but none of them have anything to do with architecture!  

Tom-

I don't hit my driver over 50 yards sometimes...50 yards straight, that is!  (Ask any number of the guys I've played with in GCA outings...    )

And believe me, I've probably considered exacting some of those non-architecture solutions to myself after some of those drives!!  

Seriously though, what do you think?  I thought about maybe a teebox to play to the green on a diagonal, making the carry shorter, although one would have to consider the design of the green and how it would accept a shot from that angle.  

I discussed this with someone, I forget whom, this past summer, and I think their response was to the effect of just making it as small a carry as possible from the forward tees.  

I only say this where there is water to be carried...broken ground, scrub/waste areas, or rough, I am ok with, because the player can still have a shot from there.  

[TEPaul]

Doug:

Please don't get me wrong---I do think this is a real problem that needs to be considered on some courses but probably not all. A course such as PVGC could never possibly have become all that it is if the original designer concerned himself with issues such as this. All this is nothing more, in my opinion, than a real endorsement for my "Big World" theory that there should be something out there for various levels of golfers---and historically speaking that does mean that some levels are not considered or designed for or even accomodated in many ways. In a certain sense that's the beauty, the richness and the uniqueness of golf course architecture.

[A_Clay_Man]

I generally agree with your viewpoint, and frankly I do not quite get the mindset of the Matt Wards and Adam Claymans who seem to have the desire to simply drive a segment of short hitters right out of the game.

DM, I suppose I shouldn't be shocked by this statement, but, I'll give you respect and try to clarify MY viewpoint, which you inaccurately surmise.

 I didn't say the GAME. I said, That Course. Or rather, it was more about "them" going to another, different golf course, more to their liking and ability level.  Same should be true, with Congressional's home hole. If it's too much, either don't tee it up on #1, or do what I saw one man do on #17 at Shadow Creek recently, don't tee it up, on that hole.

But the bigger issue You seem to really be missing is how courses Like Oakmont, Bethpage Black and even Pebble Beach, were designed to be golfed by accomplished players. Sure, the unaccomplished is welcome to take a try, and maybe, just maybe, they will see where thier deficeincies lie, and improve on them.

David, I golfed yesterday with a lady in her 70's who just took up the game. We were at the appropriate course. I enjoyed watching her, and she enjoyed soaking up my encouragement, to her. So, to characterize me as some form of ogre, who doesn't respect peoples freedoms, says more about you, than me. Since you don't know me, and you seem to have a habbit of making-up these preposterous assumsumptions, perhaps you should examine deep within yourself where all this pathos is coming from?  

[DMoriarty]

Adam,

I've characterized you as an "ogre, who doesn't respect peoples freedoms?"   Well that is terrible.  I wonder where I could have come up with my "preposterous assumptions?""    

Hmmm . . . . perhaps it was when you stated . . .  

If it were my course, less consideration in the design process for the golfer who can't carry-it 100 yards, would make me happy. Forward tees not withstanding. I want golfers on my course, not those who haven't spent time learning the game or the ettiquette of the sport. And those who have, and still miss it, they deserve their fate . . . .

Or or maybe it was when you suggested that the non-golfers (read, those who dont golf up to your standards) should "play hay," whatever that means.  

No matter, you've clarified now.  You agree with my characterization, but note that it only applies at certain courses.  Yours, for instance.   Your a NIMBY.  Or should I say a NAMHaC, for "Not at My Home Course."

Given your NIMBY position, my query still remains.  How does making the game more accessible for the duffer hurt your playing experience?   Before you take offense, please note I am only referring to your playing experience at the courses you think should drive away the duffers.

[TEPaul]

"Well that is terrible. I wonder where I could have come up with my "preposterous assumptions?""

DavidM:

So do I. How about an answer to that?  

"How does making the game more accessible for the duffer hurt your playing experience?  Before you take offense, please note I am only referring to your playing experience at the courses you think should drive away the duffers."

Are you suggesting that all courses and architecture should incorporate design that makes the course accessible to (accomodating of) the duffer?

I'm all for the "Big World" theory of architecture where there're courses that accomodate the duffer and there're courses that don't. One way to do it obviously is with multiple tees but that concept seems to escape you for some reason.

You didn't like my mention of PVGC either. That's a course that was dedicatedly intended NOT to accomodate the duffer. I think it always very much surprised Crump and PVGC that duffers actually seemed to enjoy playing there althought its architecture was the farthest thing from accomodating of their games. I wonder why that was. Don't you?

[A_Clay_Man]

David, Face facts, the balance shifts, depending on the design. A successful vector (be business or personal) will adapt to the change. Isn't this all about the obsolesence thang? Why shouldn't factors, that resemble market forces, continue to push the envelope's of the design world? Why should archies be handcuffed because the Havershams can't carry it 100 yards? Why should the cost be exponentially increased to accommodate the Havershams, when there are plenty of existing designs geared for their abilities?


My experiences?

I haven't been to Germany, but I like their no nonsense appraoch to exactly WHO gets on their precious few 18 hole courses.

Or, do you prefer 3 and half hour nines?

David, I honestly believe that the mixing of player abilities, in a foursome or team competition, is an important factor in the sport. But certainly there is a level, on both ends of the spectrum, where that model just doesn't work. But, ya know what ? Thats Golf. Not all models work for all situations.

Sounds like you're married to some pre-existing condition or, the position that all great golf courses should be playable for all levels of ability. Poopykook

[DMoriarty]

"Well that is terrible. I wonder where I could have come up with my "preposterous assumptions?""

DavidM:

So do I. How about an answer to that?

 

I came up with them by looking what Adam had previously said.  About duffers having no place at his course . . . at letting duffers "play hay."

Are you suggesting that all courses and architecture should incorporate design that makes the course accessible to (accomodating of) the duffer?

I am suggesting no such thing.  I am asking Adam a question.  I also have a hypothesis that force carries serve much the same purpose as did cop bunkers.   I suspect you agree with this, although you are trying your damnedest not to.  

I'm all for the "Big World" theory of architecture where there're courses that accomodate the duffer and there're courses that don't. One way to do it obviously is with multiple tees but that concept seems to escape you for some reason.

I dont think much of your "Big World" theory, but that is for another thread.   The concept of multiple tees does not escape me.  Had you read my posts above you would see that I address their shortcomings in this situation.   Or did that escape you?  If you have reasons for disagreeing with my explanations (other than that you havent read them yet) I'd love to hear them.  

You didn't like my mention of PVGC either. That's a course that was dedicatedly intended NOT to accomodate the duffer. I think it always very much surprised Crump and PVGC that duffers actually seemed to enjoy playing there althought its architecture was the farthest thing from accomodating of their games. I wonder why that was. Don't you?

I dont mind your mention of PVGC but I dont have much to say, since I havent had the privilege of seeing it.   But I wonder if perhaps is is as unaccomodating as you think.  Do all the forced carries at PV automatically result in a lost ball, or can the duffer continue to duff his ball?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

But consider, in the case of my example, Congressional's 18th holes--either one of them.  Both require, from all teeboxes, a forced carry over water.

At some point there has to be a minimum standard of performance, beyond which you can't design and make allowances for.[/color]

I read somewhere a quote from Bobby Jones which related to a water hazard being like a car accident--final, and a bunker giving the player a chance for recovery.  

Now, what do you think is an effective solution for the 85 year old player who hits driver about 50 yards?
With all due respect, that fellow doesn't belong on the golf course.

Now I know many will choose to differ, but, I suspect you're viewing the issue in the context of who the golfer is, and not what his abilities are.  

If you substituted the 85 year old, for a 5 year old with the identical golfing abilities, I suspect that you'd agree with me, as do the majority of clubs in America, and I would suspect that you can throw Congressional into that mix. [/color]

I like to think about all levels of player being challenged effectively, but I just don't think having the same 85 year old hit 4,5 balls into a pond fronting the green because they can't make the carry is fun--to watch or be "that guy".
It is impossible to accomodate ALL LEVELS of players with an effective challenge.  Your ideal falls upon the sword of reality and practicality.  Again, that 85 year old doesn't belong on the golf course, he doesn't possess the ability to meet the architectural challenge presented.[/color]

What would you do?  

You do what most clubs do, you have guidelines on play.
And, many of those guidelines consider minimum standards of play before allowing a golfer on the golf course at his discretion.

Does your club permit four 5 years olds who hit their driver's 50 yards on their best drive to play in a foursome at any hour they wish ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Patrick to DougB:

"Your ideal falls upon the sword of reality and practicality."

Wow, Pat, that's impressive! Who do you think you are now---Charles Blair Shakespeare?

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

Dumbed down golf + dumbed down design = nothing I'd want to play. If that floats others boats then knock yourself out and play'em until you drop.

[cary lichtenstein]

My home course, Admirals Cove, has 8 forced carries, and I always enjoyed the course very much, and I know that those who live and belong here do as well. Today, I had a forced carry of 200 yards against a 3 club wind, and I loved it.

[DMoriarty]

Look guys, I realize that many golfers love forced carries.  I also realize that some great courses sometimes rely on them.  I also realize that utilizing them may save the course money in building and maintenance costs.  But none of these things really undercut my premise, do they?

Aren't most forced carries usually easily avoided by quality golfers?  

If so, then how would their (selective) elimination damage the golfing experience of the quality golfer?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How many forced carries do you count at Pine Valley ?

Merion ?

Maidstone ?

NGLA ?

It would seem that these four great golf courses offer a substantive number of them

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Funny, great minds must think alike. I woke up this morning thinking about Maidstone in this way-- always considered to be a wonderful "members" course for all levels---and counted up at least 13 forced carries of either water, total gunch or high fescue at the very least. This is a very good example of why I feel David Moriarty's premise is a very poor one, and a preposterous one if he's suggesting all architecture should begin to do away with forced carries to accomodate the duffer better.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The fact that these courses and their forced carries have been around for 80 plus years and have and continue to be regarded as amongst the best courses in the world, while also being regarded as great member courses would seem to reinforce my belief that golf is intended to have a mininmum performance standard as manifested in the aerial game.

Forced carries are an integral component of the examination of the golfers game and his ability to navigate the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I agree. This quaint little notion that to be ideal a course should be such that a real duffer can putt the ball all the way around it is just that---a quaint little notion! It'd obviously require a whole lot more mowing too.  

[cary lichtenstein]

How would Cypress be without forced carries at 15,16, and 17?

How would Pebble be without forced carries on 2,3,4,5,7,8,16,18?

 

[Tags:]

Tags: