Risk and Reward Design Philosophy

[Bryan Izatt]

I just received a 2006 calendar from a local private course that has me on their list of prospective members.  Very nice calendar.  Inside the cover is a one page essay on Risk and Reward as it relates to the two courses they have.  The essay quotes extensively from Dr Michael Hurdzan, the architect for the courses.

There were two statements in the piece that I found interesting, but puzzling.

"Risk and reward means that if you take a risk you'll get a reward", Hurdzan said.  "Ideally you'd like to have a design that rewards good play without penalizing poor play."

Is it a generally accepted principle of designing risk-reward holes that the ideal is to not punish bad shots, but rather to reward good shots?  How is it possible to reach this ideal?  Isn't it axiomatic that for the risk to have meaning that there is a penalty associated with not executing a good shot when giving the risky shot a try.

It "is a strategically forgiving course.  You don't have to take enormous risk."

He goes on to say that there are risks that can be taken if the player chooses to.  Is it good architecture to design a course with a "strategically forgiving" option?  Is it a sign of good architecture to design a course where a player can play all 18 holes and never take a risk, if they are so inclined?

[TEPaul]

"Is it a generally accepted principle of designing risk-reward holes that the ideal is to not punish bad shots, but rather to reward good shots?"

Bryan:

Yes it is.

"How is it possible to reach this ideal?  Isn't it axiomatic that for the risk to have meaning that there is a penalty associated with not executing a good shot when giving the risky shot a try."

That's true. If one goes for the gusto and takes a risk if he succeeds he should be rewarded and if he fails in that risk-taking he's penalized to some extent. If he decides not to attempt the risk he's not penalized and he's not rewarded either. The thinking is with really bad shots they are penalty enough in and of themselves and there's no reason to design additional penalty for them.

[jim_lewis]

 Tom said:

"The thinking is with really bad shots they are penalty enough in and of themselves and there's no reason to design additional penalty for them."

I pretty much agree with that statement in most situations. I can think of a 200 yd par three with a huge bunker about 100 yards in front of the tee. I figure that the guy who only hits it half way to the green on a par three is already in big trouble. Why kick him when he is already down.

On the otherhand, there is a famous par 5 where players used to be able to hit it far right of the fairway and still reach the green in two. That bad shot turned out to be just as good as a good one. So, the club planted some trees in the right rough, so that a "bad shot" hit way right of the fairway meant that the best a great player (like Greg Norman) could do was pitch out 100 yards from the green. Most folks on this forum went balistic because the club had the audacity to punish a bad shot. Of course. I am referring to #15 at Augusta National.

So Tom, I can agree not to add overly punish bad shots, at least in most situations. I just don't like seeing a bad shot rewarded. Check that. Since I hit more bad shots than good, I just changed my mind.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Byran,

I think its possible, as others have said. It probably goes back to Augusta and Jones.  No need to punish a 180 yard tee shot. If you can't reach the green from there, its penalty enough.  Which is why most hazards are in the prime landing zone and I predict the now popular idea of random bunkering will slowly become less popluar, (as it did starting in the 30's when Tillie took out the "Duffer Headaches) How soon we forget!

As to how hard penalty ought to be, for some reason I am thinking of an old comedy where they are shooting a man, while a banker explains to his distraught wife that "There was a substantial penalty for early withdrawal....."  Except for a few courses, or a few instances per normal course, harsh penalty in a recreational game seems inappropriate.

In golf terms, how much do you need to punish anyway?  In match play, one stroke per hole is certainly enough, and in stroke play, no more is needed or poor play can pile up a score.

There is also the idea of recovery.  Should a hazard preclude recovery, at some point the risk is too much greater than the reward, and golfers shy away from it.  IMHO, if a golfer thinks he has a 67% chance of getting out of a hazard, he will challenge it.  At 33%, he will not.  Anywhere in between his  risk taking will be match status dependent.  Generally, focus on extracting stern punishment doesn't seem right in golf design in too many instances.

And yes, I think that a course where a golfer could play safely all day and take bogeys (or doubles if he is an average player) is generally well thought out.  As with the above, a few do or die holes are certainly in order....and there are always going to be other exceptions to the general rule.

[Doug Siebert]

For the "safe" shot where you take no risk, get no reward and exact no punishment if it is poorly or carelessly played, isn't the weaker player who doesn't have the option of taking the risk ending up with a pretty boring hole since he has no choice but to play that safe riskless shot?

I used to think like Tillie apparently did and believed that it was just plain mean to punish short hitters and hackers with stuff like bunkers at 175 from the tee.  But if they never have any interest on their tee shots, the architect isn't doing all he can to maximize their enjoyment.  Seeing my dad play as he has lost distance over time has opened my eyes to the beauty of all those random bunkers I thoughtlessly hit over.  Wouldn't TOC be a lot less great if the first 250 yards off the tee offered no difficulties?

Think about this in the context of Patrick Mucci's posts about how the game has changed for him since he lost strength and his ability to hit it quite as far and as high as he had been able to.  Just because some risk/reward situations might now be a non-option for him you don't want him to be stuck with a nonstrategic slog where he faces no penalty for poorly played shots, do you?  That would absolutely not do for a player as smart and as competitive as he is!

In the ideal, strategy should be like an onion, with different levels of player finding different layers of risk/reward that fit their capabilities.  In the absence of a transcendent genius designing a course for Everyman, I think that random placement of hazards is probably a damn fine way to accomplish this goal!

[TEPaul]

Doug:

As far as architects offering short hitters and such the same types of risk/reward problems to solve they do long hitters, there's nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't call that punishing the bad shot of a short hitter.

Jim Lewis:

Obviously hitting a shot "way right" on a par 5 and being able to reach the green in two because of it is not good. Something like that would dilute whatever the legitimate strategies of the hole are supposed to be.

[Dan Moore]

I'm not sure long or short hitting is what matters.  It should be skilled vs. unskilled.  A good risk reward hole should provide challenges for both the long and shorter skilled players who are in control of their game and are requiured to use their skill to reap the reward while at the same time not unduly penalizing the unskilled player whose lack of control from shot to shot has its own inherent risks and does not need to be further penalized.  

[Mark_Fine]

Short hitters are not necesarily poor players.  They want "risk/reward" options as well.  I recall discussing a master plan at one club and talking about our intention of restoring a partial cross bunker that was about 80-100 yards off the location of the forward tee.  Someone on the committee complained that all we were doing by restoring that bunker was penalizing the weaker player.  Fortunately an older gentleman on the committee immediately chimed in and said, "I don't consider myself a weaker player.  I just don't hit it as far as I used to and I would like some interest in my tee shots just like the guy who hits it a mile.  I'd like to see that bunker restored".  

Jim,
Yes some people complained about #15 at Augusta (I know I'm one of them).  When I stood there the year after those trees were put in, I felt they were ruining the golf course.  I would have much preferred to see an old Mackenzie style bunker out there rather than trees.  Let the pro who has pushed their drive right have to think about going for the green in two from a sandy lie 200+ yards away.  Make them think about it!  The trees eliminate that option and take away from the design intent of the golf hole.  

The other thing those trees do that not many people realize is destroy some great panoramic views of the golf course.  That is one of the most beautiful aspects of Augusta National.  

Maybe when they hire someone else other than Tom Fazio to help them "improve" their golf course they will get it right  
Mark