Dilemma in golf architecture

[Mike Dickson]

Dilemma  noun, A situation that requires a choice between (equally) unfavorable options.

Firstly, I don't want this to become a risk/reward thread, because that isn't my intent.

Secondly, can you give examples of dilemma in golf architecture?  If not, hypothesize as to why it hasn't been used.  Is it a viable design feature?

[Mike Boehm]

I am not so sure that dilemma should ever be a design feature, at least I cannot think of a hole I have played that would meet your criteria.  I think that a well-designed hole should always present an option that is favorable, and that the game would not be much fun if I were standing on a tee and the only options in front of me would produce undesirable outcomes.  

I would think more often than not, dilemma on a golf course would be the result of a poorly played shot.  For example, I drive into some heavy woods - Do I try to punch through the woods while risking hitting a tree to leave a shorter shot, do I take my medicine and pitch sideways or backwards along the path of least resistance, or do I possibly take an unplayable lie and replay my prior shot?  All options are potentially unfavorable (though not necessarily equally so).

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I enjoy building holes which present the sort of dilemma you are talking about.  However, not many designers are going to do it, because the reaction of most golfers is going to be the same as the previous poster.

[Mike Boehm]

Tom -

I am curious - which of the holes that you have designed are consistent with the described dilemma?

Mike

[Joe Hancock]

I think an example might be where a fairway is routed in line with a ridge or spine, with the said spine being the center of the fairway. The 14th at the Mines is just such a fairway, and from the tee it looks like all kinds of room to hit the ball. In reality, the ball is likely to be deflected to the right, where visibility and possibly trees are then in play, or the ball is deflected left where lack of visibility is the main defense on the approach. If the tee shot is played short of the sharpest part of the spine, then a lengthy approach shot is required. Only a perfectly(read: lucky) played shot will remain on the spine, leaving the golfer with a short, visible approach to the at-grade green. Deviously simple,yet brilliant and full of dillema.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree most golfers - up to and including the great Jack Nicklaus - don't think a golf course should hurt them.  (How do I know? I once asked Jack and he said, "I don't think a golf course should hurt me") That eliminates dilemma for some golfers.......even if it is the crux of strategic architecture.  They further think that the course should define shots for them, and a large number think it should help them hit "the proper" shot.

Nonetheless, the classic dilemma hole was the old 13th at ANGC....Great reward if you challenge the creek, AND a safe par and possible birdie anyway IF you play to the (formerly) 60 yard fw with a helping slope.  Pros could hit the shot around the creek in practice and possibly early rounds all the time. In the fourth round? A different proposition, because you would hate to lose a chance to win by hitting a creek and missing an extremely wide fw.  That's a good example of creating a dilemma beyond strategy.  Of course, they couldn't resist narrowing the far side in the name of more challenge, but a lot of folks think the dilemma portion of that strategy was better.

I haven't played it, but apparently the 14th at Bandon Trails by C and C inspires some of that dilemma dread in those who have - the fw spline takes an indifferent shot so far right that it is hard to hit the green.  If getting the tee shot far enough left is a more a matter of luck than skill, I can understand the dislike.  If the spine stops so you can lay short, or drive past, or have some logical option you can reasonably execute, as mjb suggests, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Mike, did you insert the (equally) or was that part of the definition? I wasn't familiar with the dictionary definition of the word as choosing between two unfavorable options.....but I suspect that if in golf you changed it to potentially unfavorable result - i.e. at ANGC 13 - a bogey from hitting in the creek vs. a possible par (when you are thinking birdie ) it works.    

[Sean_A]

I can think of a type of hole which I think is a dilemma.  The kind where the golfer needs two of his best shots on length and accuracy to reach a green, but driver is taken out of his hand on the tee so the options of laying up or going for it are unpleasant.

Enville has a hole like this.  It is around #10ish on the Lodge.  The hole is something like 430 from the regular tees.  The angle of the fairway turns very hard left at about 170 off the tee.  One must hit a maniac hook with anything more than a 5 iron, but if you lay up you are left with 250ish up a slight hill.  No chance to get home.  I don't care for this type of architecture at all.  

I can't remember which hole, but Rogell in Detroit has a similar type of hole.  It isn't as hard as the Enville example because you can be wildish by not pulling off the hook and still have some kind of a chance to get home.  Still, I don't like the hole.

Pine Needles has hole like this as well.  A longish par 4, #17 or 17 maybe, doglegging hard left (why do all my examples turn left?) with a bunker on the inside corner and ob straight away down the right of the fairway.  The hole is essentially telling you that 3 wood-3 wood are what is needed unless you can hit a monster around the corner.  Again, not as difficult as the Enville example, but not a good hole in my opinion.  

Ciao  

Sean

[Ian Andrew]

Option 1. Hitting a driver into an area of lumpy ground but with a shorter club in your hand to a tightly bunkered little green

Option 2. laying back but having a much longer club into that same small tightly bunkered green.

Two options that are both not ideal


Can work the same with a drive on a downhill hole. Lay back for the flat and a long approach, or hit it down the hill for a shorter shot but with a downhill lie.

[TEPaul]

"Dilemma  noun, A situation that requires a choice between (equally) unfavorable options."

Mike:

If that's the definition you want to use as applying to golf architecture, I can't imagine how that could ever be a good thing in architecture, and the word "unfavorable" is the reason. I have seen a hole or two in my life that did have two (or so) options off the tee and both of them were just terrible (unfavorable) even with seemingly well executed shots and of course that created a dilemma. So, to me, that is a perfect description of a really poorly designed hole.

What you may mean, however, is when two options are in almost perfect "balance" or "equilibrium" to a golfer about which to choose. That to me is about as good as architecture and strategic architecture can get. That could describe ANGC's #13.

There may be another type of dilemma in golf architecture and that's when you look at a hole for the first time and just can't see that there appears to be anything to do that will work out well. Of course most of the time this is only visual deception. I saw a number of holes like that at Sebonack. But of course once I played those holes a few times obviously I would come to see that even if it didn't at first look like there was a good option or two (dilemma) there really was in fact a good one or even two good ones that just couldn't at first be seen very well.

I remember the first time I played the wonderful little 17th at Maidstone. Because the reeds were very high all around the pond I stood on the tee and basically couldn't see anything, no fairway, no green etc. That created a visual dilemma where I remember saying, "What is this hole and where in the world are you supposed to go?" When I hit the tee shot where they said and walked around the pond (through the reeds) and got to the fairway I could then see the fairway was actually enormous.

Other visual dilemma holes are some of the ultra blind holes at RCD where at first you have zero idea where to go or where the hole is. But just like any blindness that only happens one time---the first time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Someone could search the archives. I think I started a thread called "two bad options" or "no good options" about a year ago.  Overall, I doubt many would think that a choice between two unfavorable options would be good gca.

As I said before, many like the idea of "equal choice" along the lines of going to the movies and picking a comedy over a tear jerker first. (Both terms describe my golf game perfectly!)  The delimma come when the choice is like a mafia guy telling you "Do what I say, or else......." and you don't know what the "or else" is, but can imagine.

[Mike Nuzzo]

It took me a little while, but I finally came up with a hole that would meet the Dilemma defination.  Unfortunately it isn't a real hole...

What if the 17th at sawgrass had two greens?  Each with a flag.  The player has a choice of which equally penal, or unfavorable, target.

(it could also be two island fairways each equally penal, and not favoring an approach angle or ball flight)

In theory, is that what you are referring to Mike?

Maybe it would work.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am having a dilemma right now.  I have a second home in a little ski/golf resort in the Virginia mts.  It was a great place to go when our children were home.  They have since moved to MN.  The course is pretty with some good holes and some lousy holes.  The dilemma is that it is not only short (6300) yards but it is easy.  Consequently, most of the people who join and/or build homes either don't play golf or are high handicappers.  Single digits just don't find the course challenging enough to invest in the resort.  They go elsewhere. I hit the ball further than I did twenty years ago when I joined and now can hit it over most of the bunkers.

I would see the resort make it more challenging.  On the other hand it is fun. I suspect many are in similar situations.

[Mike Dickson]

I enjoy building holes which present the sort of dilemma you are talking about.  However, not many designers are going to do it, because the reaction of most golfers is going to be the same as the previous poster.

Tom, I too am interested in some examples.

I think an example might be where a fairway is routed in line with a ridge or spine, with the said spine being the center of the fairway. The 14th at the Mines is just such a fairway, and from the tee it looks like all kinds of room to hit the ball. In reality, the ball is likely to be deflected to the right, where visibility and possibly trees are then in play, or the ball is deflected left where lack of visibility is the main defense on the approach. If the tee shot is played short of the sharpest part of the spine, then a lengthy approach shot is required. Only a perfectly(read: lucky) played shot will remain on the spine, leaving the golfer with a short, visible approach to the at-grade green. Deviously simple,yet brilliant and full of dillema.

This is a good example.

Sean, your Enville example seems to fit; however, I don't think I like this concept too much either, especially when the approach shot is uphill.  It would be interesting to try if it was the other way around.

Option 1. Hitting a driver into an area of lumpy ground but with a shorter club in your hand to a tightly bunkered little green

Option 2. laying back but having a much longer club into that same small tightly bunkered green.

Two options that are both not ideal

Can work the same with a drive on a downhill hole. Lay back for the flat and a long approach, or hit it down the hill for a shorter shot but with a downhill lie.

Very simply put and I think it epitomizes what I was pondering.


TEP, I like your example concerning visual dilemma

What if the 17th at sawgrass had two greens?  Each with a flag.  The player has a choice of which equally penal, or unfavorable, target.

Hmmm, yes, but then its purpose would be null and void if there was no distinction between the two options.  I think for it to work, the individual would have to weigh two unique choices.  Come to think of it, it’s a lot like risk/reward with a reverse-psychological spin.

[ForkaB]

How about if one of the greens at 17TPC was 120 and the other was 200 or so (played from the curent front tees out back towards the 16th)?  To make the choice interesting the the 1st green would be a "par" 3 and the second one a "par" 4 (or even 5).  This isn't golf as we know it, of course, but it would be fun!

Agree with others above that the definition of dilemma above, using the word "unfavorable" doesn't really fit the specific case of golf.  Great golf holes make you choose between shots of variable risk and reward, on EVERY SHOT.  This gives any thinking (and reasonably competent) golfer a dilemma on every shot they play.  It's not easy to design this level of sophisticated confusion, I suspect.......

[JESII]

How about when you're dealing with two afflictions at once; the shanks when chipping, and the yips when putting. You're only good option is to hole out the approach, otherwise....

[ForkaB]

How about when you're dealing with two afflictions at once; the shanks when chipping, and the yips when putting. You're only good option is to hole out the approach, otherwise....

Been there, Jim.  It is not a pretty sight......

[JESII]

I guess the real dilemma is prior to the first tee.

[Tom_Doak]

mjboehm:  I think I've built a lot of them.  For some reason I'm thinking of Barnbougle Dunes this morning so I will give you a couple of dilemma holes from there:

4th, 296 yards:  You want to drive the green, but into the wind it's unlikely you can carry the huge dune bunker off the tee.  So now you can play short of that bunker or left of it, either of which may be partly blind.

15th, 350 yards:  Three options here because of a bunker in the center of the fairway about 230 off the tee into the wind.  You can try to carry the bunker or go to the right of it, but either way the fairway is very narrow and you are taking a chance of winding up in the marram grass.  Left, there is all the room in the world, but you have to carry it about 175 to get to the fairway, and you're going to have a blind shot over the corner of a dune on the left.  You can also lay up short of the bunker, but that leaves you maybe 150 yards in to the green.

Too many architects [especially the Tour pro architects] design their holes so that there is a clearly favored option if you can hit it far enough to get to Position A, otherwise you have to take the long way around and you get a tougher angle to the green and the bogey player has no chance.  They justify this by saying other players should use a different tee, but they really just don't want to give themselves a tough choice.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Too many architects [especially the Tour pro architects] design their holes so that there is a clearly favored option if you can hit it far enough to get to Position A, otherwise you have to take the long way around and you get a tougher angle to the green and the bogey player has no chance.  They justify this by saying other players should use a different tee, but they really just don't want to give themselves a tough choice.

Tom,
I'm having a hard time seeing how your holes are that much different... is it the difficulty of the favored approach that is different?  For them they always reward a well struck shot?

http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle/hole4.html
The better player can go for the green.  Is the difference that it is too hard of a shot going for the green.  While the average player goes the long way, albiet vertically and or blind.

http://publishing.kyneton.net.au/barnbougle/hole15.html
Similarly for 15.  Are you saying that the well struck aggressive shot isn't always rewarded?

They do look awsome.
Cheers

[Mark Bourgeois]

Can't conditioning create dilemmas, too?

I'm thinking of this because of the frozen course I played last Friday.

By no means the only example, but the second hole was a short par 4 with a bunker front-center to the green.  The green fell off behind and away from this bunker. The approaches to either side of the bunker were open, but because of the green slopes, run-up approaches ran off to the sides.

The dilemma:
1. Carry the bunker and land on the green, but watch ball bounce off green into hazard behind green; or,
2. Land approach shot 30-40 yards short and to the side of the bunker, run / bounce ball up past bunker to green, but then watch gravity deflect the ball off the green to the side.

The design didn't present the dilemma, the conditioning's affect on the design did.

Of the four balls in my group, one person executed the shot.  The ball ran right by the right lip of the bunker, slowed, turned right 90 degrees, rolled slowly...5 feet below the cup.

I understand why many do not think dilemmas should be included in the design of a hole, but speaking only for me, it was a lot of fun...and a great mental strain!

[Mike Dickson]

Exapnding on TEP's "visual dilemma" proposition, the second shot at CPC's 5th gives the player the choice between playing for distance or visibility (when laying up).  If this feature were to be isolated and used elsewhere, I think it fits perfectly.

[Mike Boehm]

Tom  -

Thanks for the response.  The holes you describe are the type I enjoy playing – where I must make a decision from the tee and there are consequences should I fail to execute.  The descriptions of 4 and 15 on the Barnbougle Dunes website make them sound like classic risk/reward holes.

I guess I am hung up on the “unfavorable” portion of the definition presented in the original post.  For instance, if I am unable to hit an accurate or long enough shot to carry the bunker you describe on the 15th at Barnbougle Dunes, then laying back of it and hitting from 150 yards in the fairway is clearly favorable.  Though it may not be the “ideal” position from which to approach the green, I am presented with a favorable option for my skill set.  To me, there is always a favorable option for the way i am playing or for the conditions I am presented on a given day.

Mike  

[Tom_Doak]

mj:  As I referred to on another thread, the 16th at Pacific Dunes is a true dilemma hole, and has elicited many queries and complaints.  Even though most people think it is an excellent hole, they do not understand why we did not level out some portion of the fairway ... whether you lay back or charge forward or even try to drive the green, there is nowhere you can play to assure yourself of a level lie.  I think that tends to make more players try to drive the green, and in consequence get themselves in real trouble in the hollow at the right front.

Short par-4 and short par-5 holes are great for dilemmas, because often the good player is close enough to the green that he feels like he HAS to go for it, even when he knows it's a foolish play.  Long 3's and long 4's provide the same problem to the average golfer ... those players would be much better off approaching them as short 4's and short 5's, but few have the patience to do so!

[Tom Huckaby]

TD -see my response to Rich in the "micro undulations" hole.

I've come to understand #16 PD is a dilemma hole for sure in the winter wind, but in the summer wind it is only such either for the timid or the overthinkers.  There's one play and one play only - bombs away at the left side.  Once you've succeeded once, it becomes crystal clear.

I guess the trick is succeeding that first time....

 

Oh, and by the way:  none of this decreases the greatness of the golf hole - it is FANTASTIC, certainly one of the best on the property.  There's just no dilemma in the summer wind.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom H:  You have obviously never hit your tee shot into the gorse bush just short and to the left of the green.