The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter

[Chris Kane]

Why are 50% of threads on this fine website disintegrating into back-and-forth personal bickering?  It's about time everyone grew up.

Tommy was right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

Reformed hookers are the worst !  You can't listen to them.

I'll take a reformed slicer most any day.

Tim & Tom & Shivas,

60 yards times (X) 18 equals (=) 1,080.

That sure leaves a heck of a lot of the golf course unaccounted for.

It would seem difficult to rate a golf course based on only
one fifth to one sixth of its physical property's.

If we're going to rate golf courses on micro areas,
I nominate Hollywood as the best, and certainly a top 100 based on its putting surfaces alone.

I'll even expand that to include green surrounds, including near bunkering.

I'll even expand that to 60 yards in.

Heck, if I add in the tee ball, the challenge of the drive,
the course skyrockets according to some analytical views previously expressed on this and related threads.

Based on 60 yards in, and/or putting surfaces, Hollywood is clealy top 50, maybe top 20, maybe even higher.

[CHrisB]

Tim,
Thanks for the answer.  I feel there are probably a few ways that a course can be top 10 from 60 yards and in but not top 100 overall, but are probably unlikely in practice because any architect team good enough to build world class greens and surrounds would probably know to avoid the pitfalls:

1. Tee shots that are too difficult for most golfers--forced carries, narrow fairways or tree canopies, excessive hazard use, etc. that take the focus away from positioning one's ball with the approach in mind to just trying to survive the tee shot.  Great greens are fun, but if you have to get up and down for bogey or worse all day, a little luster is taken off the course as a whole.

2. Tee shots that are too repetitive or overly favor one type of shot; lack of variety--the greens and surrounds can be world class, but if the player is asked to play the same tee shot over and over, or if the hole distances are too similar, then that may be enough of a negative to take it out of top 100 consideration.

3. A course built on a property that is so restrictive that it forces a severely "unbalanced" routing, something like a par 67, or 6 or 7 par 3's, or something like that--even world class greens (or holes for that matter) probably wouldn't win enough people over to overcome their bias against such routings.

4. Tee shots that lack interest or challenge--if they truly lack interest or challenge for everyone, and the tee shot is just a formality to get to the approach, then I can see where it could fall out of the top 100.  If it truly lacks interest or challenge for just the most skilled players, and that was its only drawback, then it probably would have to stay in.

With that in mind, then, my hunch is that David's statement probably isn't true to the letter, but then again I don't think he meant his comments to be taken to the letter.

I think he meant to say that there isn't enough tee shot interest and challenge at RC, for more than just a small subset of players, to keep it in the top 100.  I think this may be possible, but until I see the course for myself I'll just have to file it away.  I don't agree with the reasoning that just because there are no other courses that are top 10 from 60 and in but outside the top 100, that it's not a possibility.

I'll stay open-minded on this one.

[THuckaby2]

It's worth noting that Tom Huckaby has said several times that what I'm missing about tee shots at Rustic Canyon is that they fail to interest ALL golfers on too many holes. Tom's comment is, I believe, an admission that my original position probably is correct. Skilled golfers just aren't that much of the universe. You have to address how the course plays - specifically how tee shots play - for all golfers.

It is really a shame that Tom thinks adressing this subject is too emotional or that friendships would be lost. I'm of the opposite opinion. My hunch is that it might be quite interesting as this site includes several regulars that are very familiar with the course - far more so than Tom.

No Tim, you just NEVER misrepresent what I think, do you?

OK, since you seem to be so humorless, add an OCEAN of sarcasm there.  You do know what sarcasm is, correct?

I have told you publicly - and privately - many times now why I don't want to address this regarding Rustic Canyon.  In the past, criticisms of this course - which is held very dear to people I consider friends of mine - led to some very hard feelings, on their behalf and mine.  I just don't want to go down that road again - no good can come of it whatsoever.  I would MUCH rather focus on the positive.  I can't make that any plainer.  I've asked you very politely to let this drop, mostly privately.  Now I will say it publicly.  LET IT DROP, PLEASE?

To clarify my position, which I feel I need to do now that you've so butchered it:

1. Tee shots for all golfers do need to be taken into account.  This INCLUDES the skilled golfer, Tim.  So no, I still think you're incorrect saying that challenge/interest for the skilled golfer doesn't matter - which is what you said and have said all along, as much as you try to re-mold your argument now to track one innocuous comment I made about one specific golf course.  I'll just go with Shivas' arguments as to why these shots matter - you can argue that with him if you wish.  Just assume I agree with him.

2. On SOME HOLES at Rustic Canyon - not all - just a few, mind you - the tee shots don't hold as much interest as they might the way the course generally plays - yes, for all golfers, skilled and less skilled.  But this tiny perceived "weakness" is so overwhelmed by all the positives there, that it is irrelevant.  IT'S NOT WORTH DISCUSSING!!!!!  Rustic Canyon is a damn fine golf course and to me, that's enough said.

I'd really prefer an end to this.  I'm asking quite nicely, quite politely I believe.  I continue to respect your opinions very much, although your "style" I could do without.  Nevertheless, I'll ask this one more time:

Let it drop.

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

My thoughts channel back to when we used to play to a rock or a tree. There were no boundaries, there was no one to tell you exactly where to go, let alone that we could get there with a stone and staff/rifle.
I have heard little in the way of what defines interest and what defines challenge and I think we could all agree that that is something subjective. Let's analyse a famous idea by a famous solicitor. Shivas' notion of how the 15th at pebble could use some pot bunkers to provide the interest and challenge I think some of you are talking about.

If there was a series of bunkers that took the driver out of your hands because of the distance to these bunkers. Would that provide challenge? interest?

Challenge, if you chose to ignore the warnings and tried to thread it thru the narrow maze with the big stick?

 Interest, because you have to decide to cut a low five iron or draw a little four (or whatever you find interesting)

I'd bet, if there were another ditch at say 235yds off the tee and you had to hit short or carry it 270, some of these same proponents of C&I would scream unfair or how stupid the hole is that one has to lay-up on. (thinking of the  hole at Spring green or the 18th at Links of glen Ellen).

I still yield to Bobby and Allister, and how the concept of intimidating the golfer on the tee by NOT showing them exactly where to TRY to hit it.

Chris Kane- I am in agreement and feel that any response to any post that is of a personal nature or picking of nits, should be done on IM feature of this site.

 

[THuckaby2]

To Chris Kane and to AClayman:

For the record, I tried to keep my dispute with Tim on email after it became too personal. When he posted continued queries to me here, it was difficult not to respond.  But I do apologize for my part of this, it is childish and not worthy of the site.

As I say now, if Tim will let this drop - or simply keep it on email, as I tried to do with him - that will be the last on this you hear from me.

Beyond that, good stuff re interest/challenge... it will be in the eye of the beholder without a doubt.  I believe the lack of it would be fairly universally agreed on, but as to what exactly makes it up, it will be different based on different takes.

TH

[Tim_Weiman]

ChrisB:

Thanks for your comments. You are on the right track. I do think one would have to identify multiple deficiencies for a golf course that was truly Top Ten within sixty yards to be outside the Top 100. I can't think of one, but you're right. There is always a first time.

Pat Mucci:

I agree with your math. 18 times 60 does equal 1080 and this might be only one sixth of the physical property. Leaving aside the question of what the total square yardage may be, I think it is misleading to suggest that 60 yards and in is only one sixth of a golf course. About 80 percent of all shots played land in, come to rest in or are played in this area. Those numbers strike me as having far more significance than just one sixth of the golf course.

As for Hollywood, I've never seen it but understand it is well worth checking out. Hopefully I'll get there someday.

Tom Huckaby:

You are always free to drop out of this discussion if you find it unpleasant. From my point of view, the relative weight we should give to different type of shots for different classes of golfers is central to what discussing golf architecture is all about. Moreover, using courses as an example to discuss these issues is common practice.

I've heard three different points of view regarding tee shots at Rustic Canyon:

a) they don't interest or challenge skilled golfers enough
b) they don't interest all golfers on too many holes
c) they become more interesting the more times you play the course and are most likely to be appreciated by people who play the course regularly

Each point of view is worth exploring. It's not personal. It's fundamental to what golf architecture is all about. I won't ask you to comment any further and would appreciate it if you would stop this business of asking me to stop discussing a valid architectural issue.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Fair enough.  Perhaps subtle distinction here, though:  I never asked YOU to stop discussing this, I requested that you refrain from suggesting that I do so.  You have repeatedly challenged me to ennumerate this on a hole by hole basis regarding that specific course, I have repeatedly told you I don't want to, for what I consider very valid reasons.  THAT is what I ask you to stop.

Go ahead and discuss it yourself until the cows come home, I could care less.  Just please do leave me out of it.  It seems you have agreed to do so, which I do appreciate.  It just really shouldn't have taken this long...

And this too could have been accomplished by email.  My apologies once again to those whom this offends, but a public post requires a public response, in my book.

Can we agree to take any further personal issues between you and me to email?

TH

[TEPaul]

Can any of you conceive of a golf course that has about 14 fairways 100 yds wide with nothing at all on any of those fairways to penalize any golfer--skilled or unskilled?

And after conceiving of that can any of you conceive of how it's possible to create interest (and challenge) on all those tee shots nonetheless?

But everyone asks if they're all 100 yds wide with nothing of any risk/reward consequence on them then where would the interest and challenge of that tee shot be?

Obviously it would be on the need to put the tee shot in the correct position on those 100 yd wide fairways in relation to what came next ANYWAY! And the degree to which it's IMPORTANT ANYWAY to put the ball in the correct postion on those 100yd wide fairways that have zippo penalty (direct penalty mind you) on that incremental shot (the TEE SHOT) is the degree to which that tee shot would come to have INTEREST and CHALLENGE!

If anyone wants to deny that then they'd have to deny that what came next was not of importance to where that tee shot ended up.

But let's use David Wigler's example of Rustic Canyon being such a good course from 60 yds and in. What could he mean by that? I'd have to think he means that there must be real importance where the ball is on an arc within a radius of 60 yds of the green. If he doesn't mean that I really wish he'd explain what he does mean when he says RC is so good from 60 yds and in. Possibly he means it matters not where the ball is on an arc within a radius of 60 yds and in but I for one would find that extremely hard to believe of RC. Saying that would in effect be saying that all the problems and solutions from any position on an arc within a 60 yd radius of the green must be the same problems and solutions or at the very least co-equal problems and solutions.

Again, I find that hard to believe. So my assumption is that the problems and solutions on an arc within a 60 yd radius of the greens very much depends on the position of the ball on an arc within a 60 yd radius of the greens.

And if that's true then how could it not be challenging and interesting where your ball happens to be when you're outside the arc of that 60 yd radius around the green? And outside that arc within a 60 yd radius of the green would be somewhere of real strategic importance on that 100 yd wide fairway.

I think the entire point of this whole multi-thread discussion is there're players who demand not just INDIRECT challenge and interest on that incremental tee shot alone but DIRECT challenge and interest on that tee shot. In other words they want golfers to be immediately and directly penalized on that tee shot like being in a bunker or such!

But what if they aren't? What if they're simply in a really bad position on the 100 yd wide fairway for the risks and rewards of the next shot?

This is the entire difference between "direct tax" and "indirect tax" architecture when considering tee shots and their interest and challenge.

The problems are that most golfers expect to be shown something on every shot by the architect--sort of single shot or incremental shot problems and solutions either directly or indirectly. But what if the architect constructed a course where the tee shots (on 100 yd wide fairways with nothing on them) appeared to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever but in fact they had lots of meaning to something that came at some point later?

That would in effect be the architect requiring the golfer to figure out his strategy on something like the tee shot ALL BY HIMSELF.

That to me would be incredibly sophisticated architecture both on the tee shots and the rest of the course. And I'd have to say that although those tee shots might appear to be lacking in interest and challenge they certainly wouldn't be particularly since the golfer would need to figure out all by himself why they weren't lacking in interest and challenge!

[David Wigler]

Tom,

I am sticking with my ban on discussing RC.  It simply got silly, but I will answer what I meant by 60 yards in (And upon further thought, I probably should have said 30 yards in).  I was getting at the shaping of the greens, the fit of the bunker work to the greens, the quality of the bunker work, the interest in chipping and retention areas, the interior and exterior contouring of the greens, the green surrounds, etc.  I never intended the comment to have anything to do with the fit of the green to any particular shot.  

[Tim_Weiman]

David,

Just as a clarification, did you mean to include how the green complex treats approach shots?

[David Wigler]

No - except as it relates to other shots within this 30-yard radius.  For example (In this category), I am not concerned about a shot into the green from 80, 100, 200, or 300 yards.  I am concerned that if it misses long right, how creative or well thought out is the collection area and what kind of options will be available for the player when they land in that collection area.

I was evaluating the green complex in a vacuum as a creative and functional work of art.  Reminder - This is strictly my definition.  Others may look at it differently.

In my mind, I evaluate a golf course on:

1. Interest off the tee
2. Interest around the green
3. Fit of approach shot to the green complex (I think this is what you are getting at and it is a different category for me) ex. #3 at UofM has a brilliant green complex but Art Hills redesign screwed up the approach so badly that now the green is misaligned.  The green complex is not lessened but it no longer works for the hole.
4. Putting surfaces
5. GW's "Walk in the park"
6. Logic of routing

I have personal favorites in each of these categories and then accumulated results that make up my own individual top 10's, 100,s etc.

[THuckaby2]

David - tag, you're now in the ring.  Where the hell have you been?  I've betting getting worn out....  

Hulk Huckaby

[David Wigler]

Huckster,

You know I love you like a brother but I meant what I said.  I will be playing RC again in a couple of weeks.  Until that point, I am going to accept DaveM's contention that I missed it my first time.  If I feel the same after my second time, I will probably shut up and then accidentally let some little innocuous comment slip and start this whole war over again (Needing to once more enlist your support).  I have been doing all of my other responses off line to not drag this any more personal.  If it had been anyone but TomP who asked the question, I probably would have ignored it as well.

PS - I did get a huge kick out of this thread and the upsetness about not having views properly characterized and I was in meetings all day yesterday and did not log onto GCA until after dark.

[THuckaby2]

No hassles, Wily Wigler (your wrestling name until you come up with a better one), I was just giving you shit.  Your take is a very wise one.

So when are you gonna be there?  I saw June 15 somewhere else... I'm right near there June 20 and hadn't planned to go to RC due to obligations elsewhere and the need to get back to the family to avoid castration... but then again, family is one thing, but witnessing this historic event is another.  Send me an email, call, IM, whatever.  I'd love to be able to work this out.

TH