[Tim Bert]

Admittedly, I haven't seen or played the course, but I think the hole offers more of a challenge without the bunker in back.
Now, the golfer only has the flag, and a backdrop of trees with which to allign his shot.   I think the removal of the bunker should increase the skill needed on the 2nd shot.

jf

I saw this remark on the thread about Huntingdon Valley and I've seen others like it in the past.

Pardon my ignorance, but could someone please help a novice understand why this is true?

When I line up shots, I tend to pick a spot on the green (or fairway or landing area) and mentally trace that spot back to somewhere a few feet or yards in front of me.  How does not having a bunker or a tree or anything to "frame" the shot make this task more difficult.  Is it really harder for me too and I just don't realize it?  Or am I just so bad at lining up shots even if there is something to frame it that it doesn't make a difference for me?

It's one of those concepts I've heard many times, but never really understood.  I just don't get it.

Could someone that agrees with the concept please explain?

[Kyle Harris]

Tim,

A lot of it has to do with the way golfers perceive a shot. I'd venture to say that you're in the vast minority.

Having framing features tends to give most people a sense of depth perception and an ideal "funnel" to focus in on. The less these features exist, the more the golfer needs to rely on such synthesis as you do anyway in your routine.

Framing features allow the lazier golfer to stay lazy mentally.

[Tim Bert]

I'm a 14 handicap and one of the biggest criticisms of my game is my inability to maintain my mental focus throughout a round.  My best rounds usually include great stretches of 6 or 9 holes, with a couple blow-ups thrown in to keep me honest.  

The best example of this is my career round.  I was 1 under par through 13 holes - I went triple, double on 14 and 15 - came back with a birdie on 16 and shot 74.  That was 4 years ago and I haven't broken 80 since.  I shot an 87 the following day.

But the technique I mentioned is always how I've gone about lining up shots.  I think if I were able to apply as much consistent focus on my swing as I do on my alignment, then maybe I'd shave a few strokes.  I have a mathematical mind, so this alignment approach has just always made sense to me, and I've never noticed that the lack of things to frame the green had an impact on me.  I'm sure it will next summer now that I'm thinking about this so much!  

[Kyle Harris]

Tim,

I think your method of lining up the shots is fine... but I must ask you, what type of shots are you lining up?

Blow up holes are usually caused by mental errors in strategy, not execution.

Are you lining up shots that you are capable of making?

[Tripp_Davis]

Tim,

I don't agree or disagree with the notion.  The notion being does framing or defining the shot make it easier.  Defition for the sake of defintion is a concept that most on this site will say they don't like as a tool for the golf architect, and for the most part I have to agree.  The argument must be looked at both psychologically - how what the golfer sees affects the way they feel about the shot - and physically - how what the golfer knows is actually there affects the shot.  Lack of definition will typically make it more difficult for a player to visualize the shot and then commit to the physical act.  However, if what helps to define the shot is a severe penalty, it can work as an even a greater force to either making it difficult to see an aggressive shot or to commit to hitting such a shot.  Such will also vary greatly with the level of the player and the type of shot the player is comfortable hitting.  For instance, if a pin is tucked to the left side of a green with water down the entire left side, a player who is comfortable controlling a draw is more likely to see and execute a shot at the flag, while a player who is more comfortable fading the ball will have more difficulty finding the nerve to start it on a line that will result in a short putt.  However, if the hazard to the left is a deep bunker and the fader is a great bunker player, they might not have as difficult a time taking an aggressive line.  

Have you ever heard a touring pro say a shot, a hole, or a course fits their eye?  This is what they are talking about.  Courses that regularly give the golfer nothing to use to help them fit their eye can present subtle challenges.

Also consider Pete Dye's golf courses.  They look very difficult, but he has oftened used hazards and features to help the player see the shot.  Just on looks, Pete's courses should be the hardest in the world for the best players, but good players often score very well on his courses, if they know how to read what he is offering and use visual aides to help them see the shot better.

Does lack of definition inherently make a shot more difficult?  It depends on what the defining element is and what paradigm the player brings to the shot.  

[Tim Bert]

Kyle, you know me pretty well.  My best golf buddy and I always talk about the flaw in my approach.

I would typically describe it in the following way.  I know I'm capable of making par or birdie on any given holes because I've done it enough when I'm playing well.  I hate playing for bogey, even on tough holes, despite my lack of ability.  Ironically, it is my competitive nature (on any given hole) that renders me less competitive.

I think that part of the problem is that I get most lazy when I'm attempting a shot that I take for granted.  I've botched more than enough safe plays in my time (and I don't practice enough) to frustrate me.

Classic example from Bandon Trails this summer.  Hole #8 - caddie pulls the 5-iron on the tee.  I really wanted to hit a wood, but I'd been going with his advice all day.  I never committed to the shot he asked me to hit, and I topped that sucker less than 50 yards.  It was almost as if I was proving a point to myself that I should have played more aggressively.

I'm a basket case!

[Paul Payne]

I think one of the trickiest shots in golf is from a relatively good lie on an undulating fairway, from about 195 yards to a seemingly flat and unprotected green.

A perfect example of this is #2 at Palmetto in Aiken SC. The undulations in the fairway are just enough to distort your preception of distance. The green is small and has some roll but is essentiall flat and the drop off from the fringe out is almost non-existant. These two features combine to confuse your sense of distance as far as picking your precise landing area.

Combined with the fact that you could play high or low, or any amount of english on the ball, the hole leaves you with a clear sense of uncertainty about the what you must do. It is especially frustrating because after you take a breath you realize this is a very straightforward shot and there is no reason for mental anguish. Still, in the end, I've seen as many misses or more there than on greens that seem to be more heavily protected.

Who says golf is a game of the mind?

[Doug Siebert]

Tim,

You may fall victim to this without even realizing it.  I'm sure you can relate to the idea that you have some holes that just "fit your eye".  There isn't any rhyme or reason but you just better than your ability on certain shots and worse than your ability than others.  I'm sure you have holes that have just as much room for your drive as others but you seem to always hit your drive in the wrong place, and other holes with just as much room where you seem to bang it into position A way more often than you have any right to expect, that sort of thing.

Not saying this is all framing, a lot of it is confidence, past history, etc.  But you'll see architects using techniques to inspire positive or negative vibes in golfers.  Ever wonder why the drop shot par 3 is such an overused cliche on modern designs?  Because golfers like to see the green surface, it inspires confidence.  Most golfers would rather play a 200 yard downhill par 3 rather than a 120 yard uphill hole where you can only see the top half of the flag.

It operates differently with different people of course, maybe you are immune.  I think I'm pretty immune to distance related visual tricks, because I'm younger and have always played knowing my distances so I don't really care if I might guess it is 150 or 200, if I am next to a sprinkler head that says '176', I'm playing it as 176.  But a really busy visual field with lots of trees really makes me feel claustrophobic off the tee where they do that foreshortening trick (i.e., the corridor is 70 yards wide at 100 off the tee, 60 yards wide at 200, 50 yards wide at 300)  Makes it look a lot narrower than it really is so it PLAYS much narrower for me because I'll just hit the damn ball all over the place.  My home course does this on a bunch of holes and it really drives me nuts sometimes because it is NOT a confidence inspiring view off the tee on a day when I'm more directionally challenged than usual.

[Tom_Doak]

Tripp:

One thing I can tell you from having worked for Pete Dye is that he has NEVER deliberately helped a good golfer visualize a shot.  He is totally against bunkers on the outside of doglegs because they are a targeting device for good players.  He's even cut down large trees (as on the 14th hole at Crooked Stick) just because they might help orient big hitters' tee shots.  And he tries to find angles that make it hard for good players to aim away from trouble, without getting into some trouble on the other side.

However, I might agree with you that all of those things put together have a different effect -- they just encourage a really good player to put them all out of mind and aim right for the hole.

I've taken the opposite tack in my designs.  I love giving players a bail-out area, because the timid player (even the really good timid player) will hedge to the side of safety, and thus even his good shots will wind up further from the hole.

[TEPaul]

I've read some very fine answers on this post. It's generally been assumed that good and experienced players can lock in on architectural "framing" and definiition very easily assuming that framing or definition is where they understand they should hit the ball. Apparently many architects do this intentionally---ie it's just a way of basically showing players who are semi aware of these techniques how to figure it out more easily.

I've always taken that to essentially be the landscape or just "Art" priniciple of Emphasis---eg drawing the eye to the most important part and in golf architecture that 'most important part' is generally where the player is supposed to hit the ball.

It's an "Art" priniciple applied in golf architecture I don't like at all. I'd just as soon see a golf architecture try to fool a players eye to make them concentrate better on the golf course and mentally unravel the problems and solutions before him on his own. I think that's the way of Nature.

My Dad played good golf back in that era I call the "Transition" era when good players were so much more of what they used to call "shot makers". He used to talk about "framing" all the time but back then I don't believe he was so concerned with where to aim the ball without "framing"--it was more a matter of the "framing" giving him an indication of the scale of his target and in that way he could pick up on the distance required so much better.

It's so much different today, though, when everyone has exact yardages to all targets. Don't forget, the 1940s and early 1950s was the last of the old shot-makers like my Dad. Most all those guys played distances strictly by eye and by feel---they never knew that well what actual distances were and in that way "framing" and definition helped them "feel" yardage and distance far more than direction.

It's so true what Trip Davis said about some shots and some presentations just not fitting particular players' eye.

I saw that at the US Amateur at Merion this year bigtime. The player I followed for the week ran into that a couple of times and once it was so obvious he had a hard time getting set and hitting his tee ball and that was not one day but in practice and in qualifying on the same hole.

He said the tee shot just didn't fit his eye at all and he just couldn't feel right about where to hit it even when he was told repeatedly. In both rounds he hit bad tee shots and exactly the same type of bad tee shot.

This one is a pretty interesting hole and now that he mentioned it, there really is no question that for most any golfer not familiar with this hole it is one of the most difficult and complex tee shots for so many golfers to get comfortable with. I've seen this tee shot do that to players in competition for years now.

It's Merion's par 5 4th and even for me who knows it so well it still makes me uncomfortable when standing on the tee trying to hit the tee shot.

But I think that's a wonderful thing in golf architecture and I think the tee shot on #4 Merion is one of the best designs for that.

I'd never really thought of it before but in many ways Flynn's par 5 #7 at HVGC has done the same thing to many players on the tee for years too---it can make them feel uncomfortable and if you look closely at it the very same visual complexity exists on that tee shot as does on Merion's #4. It wouldn't surprise me at all if William Flynn was completely aware of that and maybe even did it on purpose. After-all he cut his design teeth on Merion East and in a number of identifiable ways one can see how it influenced some of his architectural traits for the remainder of his career.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

Very interesting you mention HVGC #7, that's the very hole I thought of reading this thread. You stand on that tee thinking you can't aim far enough left and keep it in the fairway. Yet there is ample room in the fairway.

That, and if you do feel comfortable with a line off the tee, you're scared sh!tless of hitting any sort of a draw.

Do you remember the old tree that used to be on the right side of the fairway? It died sometime between 2001 and now.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()