Forced carries or totally parallel hazards that cannot be carried--Bad design ?

[mike_malone]

These hazards seem to lack strategy and only penalize a mishit. Why would anyone design them on purpose?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

These hazards seem to lack strategy and only penalize a mishit. Why would anyone design them on purpose?

Do you mean perpendicular to line of play?  Parallel to line of play means to me a fairway and companion feature that is generally a hazard where you choose the distance of the forced carry and that is exciting. Short carry may be no more than 60 yards and the most  advantageous position for the approach into the green  may require the longest carry though not always.

Why would you design a forced carry? Only when you're forced to.

Good Night!

[mike_malone]

Kelly,

  I meant two types of hazards--one you must carry--the other that runs along the right or left of the tee or line of play with no carry option.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

Surely, you jest.

# 13 and # 15 at ANGC are two of the most famous, most visible examples of something you seem to despise, yet, they are widely acclaimed as being great holes, with wonderful risk/reward and options.

Why don't you sleep on this one and get back to us in the morning.  

[Mike_Sweeney]

--one you must carry--

Mayday,

That is my 10 year old's favorite shot in golf!

[wsmorrison]

Are you saying why have hazards?  Because if they ain't in front of you and they ain't on the side of you, there ain't no other place to put them.  Unless you want them in back of you  

[Kyle Harris]

Mayday,

To actually answer the question:

Typically because the topography is such that having to cross creeks and other water features are also akin to having cross low areas. If they were to be avoided, each hole would be going uphill from the water.

Pretty redundant.

Come on guys, this sort of thing isn't necessarily a priori for architecture. Think outside the box a bit.  

[TEPaul]

"These hazards seem to lack strategy and only penalize a mishit. Why would anyone design them on purpose?"

Mayday:

The real reason is pretty elementary. It's because from the beginning of golf architecture, golf architects have never been anywhere near as fixated on this idea of "strategy" in every single instance as most of the contributors to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com seem to always be.

Sometimes architects create what we sometimes call "shot testing" situations, in other words a golfer just has to do it or die!  

What do you suggest we do about that---take the hole to Golf's Court of Fairness or something?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Patrick,

It certainly is exciting watching Augusta at 13 and 15.  However for the average club member on a typical forced carry hole if you hit a bad drive then you probably have to wedge it up to the creek and then play the forced carry with a wedge shot or something close to that.  So the average player, and even a good player must hit a good to great drive or the second shot is a nothing shot, that is my problem with the forced carries is that the hole quickly becomes very boring if the tee shot is not played just right.  We used to play a course in San Saba, TX that had a forced carry to a par 5 last hole, the forced carry could be made on the second shot to reach the green in two.  Much anticipated hole, however if you hit a bad drive the whole excitement of the hole was gone, that was it you hit a bad drive wedge it up to the edge of the pond and then wedge up to the green.  Had there been some other challenge that gave you a second chance to redeem yourself it would have been a much better hole, there would still be the incentive and excitement from a well played tee shot.  If there is a way around the hazard off to the side then if the player hits a bad drive they can still hit a mighty second shot to try and circumnavigate the hazard and have an  open shot to the green.  To me that is a much more exciting hole that provides another avenue by which to play the hole without diminishing the reward of a forced carry over a hazard to reach the green in one fewer shot.  Seems to me there is much more freedom and excitement in that type of design as opposed to the forced carry.  What creates the forced carry doesn't neccesarily have to be a low area, creek, etc, and can be a natural feature on the high land.  The problem with people always chiding others to think outside the box is that they always use the same phrase, if you really want to listen to someone who thinks apart from others then they are usually the ones that don't fall back on cliches
 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Are you saying why have hazards?  Because if they ain't in front of you and they ain't on the side of you, there ain't no other place to put them.  Unless you want them in back of you  

Wayne,

I had the embarrassing moment yesterday of chipping near a path with curb, skulling it into the curb and laking my shot, even though the lake was behind me.  I never considered that in my strategic thinking.......and yet  ......

The frontal hazards of ANGC DO represent strategic thinking on a par 5, whereas they wouldn't on a par 3, or long par 4 where a player who couldn't carry them in regulation figures would still have to lay up.  And the tee shot on 13 features an angled creek, which does inject real strategy.  I agree with Kelly, that if you can't carry it, there ought to be some additional strategy in laying up, like a narrowing fw with diminishing returns, one flat area to target, etc.

I agree that most forced carries aren't strategic, and don't represent the shot testing ability as well as other situations.  However, purely lateral water hazards can certainly guard the line of charm effectively, no?  How many times do you shy to the wide side of the fw to take that out of play?

[mike_malone]

 #13 and #15 ANGC are good examples for discussion. In fact, #13 is just a small creek in front so one is not forced to carry alot of water and it has that movement around the right side of the green that creates the strategy. It also is not at a fixed distance so one can layup to their favorite distance. For #15 the water is more of a forced carry but it isn't on the tee shot so that,again, the required carry distance is not fixed.

  Wayne,

   Think about how Flynn used water at Indian Creek where he had a tabla rasa. The par three has a small strip of water to carry but the main use of water is at the back of the green . Then the wonderful short par four follows with the strategic use of water; cut off as much as you choose.

    My favorite course to hate , Stone Harbor, has many holes where the water is only to be avoided ; you  are not given a chance to decide what you want to do.

    Tom,

        I love shot testing but hate capital punishment for failure. When the brain is not engaged in decision making the game becomes boring.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

The difference at ANGC is that if you miss your drive, the hole is anything but boring.

Second shots can be very difficult due to the terrain and the golfer is left with the choice, how far do they want to hit their second shot and to what prefered location.

Then, the third shot, be it L-Wedge or 7-iron is no easy task.
It's a dicey shot, and can get even dicier with certain hole locations.

The 13th and 15th at ANGC are par 5's.

Two terrific par 4's with forced carries are the 12th and 18th at Pine Tree, both usually into a prevailing wind.

If you miss your drive, ideally positioning your second shot is anything but boring, it's critical, again, especially depending on the hole location.

At some time in a golfers journey, a pass or fail test should be forced upon them.

Mayday,

The creek on # 13 at ANGC plays a lot bigger than the width of the creek due to the feeding nature of the fronting terrain.

How do you view # 17 at TPC ?  # 5 at PV, # 14 at PV, # 15 at PV, # 16 at PV ?  ?  ?

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

   I think #17 TPC is interesting because it shows that to make the strategy work the hole must be short and the green big enough to allow for choices. I haven't played it yet but it seems that Dye has recognized the dilemma and designed around it.

    As for PVGC, This is a course that bills itself as a heroic course that is not for everyone so it gets a pass to some extent. But, I think the downhill par three on the back suffers from the fronting water. I prefer the other par threes much more.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I love shot testing but hate capital punishment for failure. When the brain is not engaged in decision making the game becomes boring."

Mayday:

If you can't get your brain engaged in "shot testing" forced carries all I can say is you better pick your courses carefully. Are you saying you'd actually become bored on your way to the Electric Chair? That'd be quite amazing!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

What choices are there on # 17 at TPC ?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Patrick,

As to the issue Mayday raised I think par is irrelavant.  The point is to get the ball into the hole in the least amount of strokes.  I have not played the holes you mention so you may have a case, however I still think the recovery shot requires more attention other than laying up short of a hazard, granted positioning in accordance with terrain and stance, but still for most players it is an exercise rather than an adventure, at least that is how I envision the problem raised here.  Rarely in life does anyone face a pass or fail test, so I am not certain why that should happen in golf.  I have never liked the interruption in the flow of the game posed by water.  It is more interesting to me if the ball is always in play that there is always the opportunity for redemption, recovery, as compared to having to fish a ball out one's bag, drop it and then play away, that to me is an unwelcome and unnatural interruption in the game to be avoided if possible.  

[mike_malone]

Pat,
    IF the wind is reasonable one can choose to aim at sections of the green. One can choose a club to just carry or be bolder to a back pin with an additional club. The art of choosing to hit a full shot or a half shot  also seems strategic to me.
    But if I must hit my driver the best I can and the straighest I can  (forced carry of 240 yards) that isn't strategic.

   Tom,
 Maybe you need to define "shot testing" for me. I don't want to disagree if in fact we agree.

    I would hope I had made my peace with the Lord before they start the walk to the chair!

[Sean_A]

Mayday

I don't want 4 or 5 of these holes in which I could be dipping into my bag, but one or two are fun, add interest and variety.  My biggest problem with forced carries is what is being carried.  I like some sort of desert area or bunker (a la The Road) which is harsh to hit from, but worth going to have a look for.  Water is preferable to long rough though.  I hate trolling through tall, thick rough looking for balls.  I would rather just call the thing in a hazard than look for it.  Call me lazy.  

Ciao

Sean

 

[PThomas]

Mayday:  gotta agree with Patrick re 17 at TPC...I think that green would have to be much bigger or much closer for all but the absolutely best players in the world to truly have a choice on how to play..

right now even the pros dunk a fair amount of balls in there ...and the public dunks an average of 3 for every player there!

[mike_malone]

 Paul,

    I somehow have been turned around here. I started a thread that is against forced carries. Now I am defending #17 TPC as alright.

   I just think one of the few ways it could work is on a short hole. If TPC #17 's green is too small for choices than it sucks!

[mike_malone]

 Actually the water that runs along the side of the line of play with no carry option is more bothersome to me . The result is a decision to avoid at all costs since there is little or no benefit to hugging it.

  This is usually seen at resort courses .


   Now if Pat can find some interesting uses of this hazard  I will be impressed.

[Jason Topp]

I would argue that a well designed hole with a parallel hazard is particularly appropriate given the technology battles that exist today.  

As an example - the recently discussed Talking Stick North hole:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=21319;start=0

If you assume the left side is water rather than out of bounds, the same strategy issues arise, namely the closer you are to the hazard, the better the angle to the green.

If, on the other hand, the hazard crossed the fairway at an angle, the long hitter would receive a double advantage - an ability to take a better angle and a shorter hole.  I've seen a 25 yard distance advantage turn into a 100 yard advantage because the longer hitter can take a more aggressive angle off the tee.  Such situations create a double reward for power.

[mike_malone]

 Jason,

   Thanks for your post. Don't you think the wide fairway is essential to this hole. If you had your usual 35 yard fairway I wonder how this would change your view of this hole.

[Jason Topp]

Mayday:

I agree - hence the "well designed" qualifier to my post.  If the hole is too narrow to create any options, it is simply a penal hazard.  If the green complex does not reward tempting the hazard, it becomes boring.  If the length of the hole is such that it really makes no difference, the value of the hazrd disappears.

[Patrick_Mucci]

IF the wind is reasonable one can choose to aim at sections of the green.

You can choose to, but, the likelihood is that you'll go in the water.[/color]

One can choose a club to just carry or be bolder to a back pin with an additional club.

Noone chooses a club to JUST CARRY the water.
A 10-15 foot putt from behind the hole is preferable to a ball, just slightly mishit that goes in the water.

Who, in their right mind would be BOLD enough to attack a rear pin ?[/color]

The art of choosing to hit a full shot or a half shot  also seems strategic to me.

You equate hitting a full shot to a 3/4 shot as an element of strategy ?

Would the choice of a wedge versus a 9-iron also seem strategic to you ?[/color]

But if I must hit my driver the best I can and the straighest I can  (forced carry of 240 yards) that isn't strategic.

Then, you're playing from the WRONG tees.[/color]