[Jonathan Cummings]

On golf architecture: "I like there to be a relationship between the quality of your drive and ease of your second shot."

I stole this from Geoff Shack's site.  It's a quote from Geoff Ogilvy

JC

[TEPaul]

Personally, I like the type of golf hole where the relationship of the drive to what is best (or worst) for the second shot is anything but obvious on the tee.

When this occurs on golf holes I feel it almost forces golfers to think better in what may be termed "whole" hole strategies (what Max Behr called "strategic unity") instead of just the risk and reward consequences of single shot increments.

However, it seems today that too many golfers feel if there is a lack of definition or shot dictation on a particular shot in a risk/reward context that that particular shot or part of that hole is weak.

[Pat Brockwell]

I've come to believe that a really good golf hole tempts you to do something foolish, and rewards something wise.  Holes that dictate do neither.  Bill Coore talks about introducing doubt.  What makes the hole great IMO is when the foolish and the wise can change with hole location  tee and weather changes.  That'll get you doubting.

[TEPaul]

"Bill Coore talks about introducing doubt."

He does?

This is not a conversation I've ever had with him but I'm very happy to hear he said it nonetheless.  

[Mark Pearce]

Personally, I like the type of golf hole where the relationship of the drive to what is best (or worst) for the second shot is anything but obvious on the tee.

When this occurs on golf holes I feel it almost forces golfers to think better in what may be termed "whole" hole strategies (what Max Behr called "strategic unity") instead of just the risk and reward consequences of single shot increments.

However, it seems today that too many golfers feel if there is a lack of definition or shot dictation on a particular shot in a risk/reward context that that particular shot or part of that hole is weak.

I don't think it is inherent in the Ogilvy quite that he expects the requiredtee shot to be obvious.  He talks about the quality of the tee shot.  Given that, as a touring pro, he won't play a competitive shot on a course without having played it before at least in practice and he gets paid according to how wellhe learns the lessons that a courseteaches when you play it and he's very good at what he does, it's fair to assume that when he talks about the quality of a drive he's including the strategy in his measure of strategy.  Nothing about obviousness or doubt can be read into his comment.

I have to say that the more I hear Ogilvy and read what he says, the more I like him.  He seems to have an understanding of the game that is as close to mine as any touring pre multi millionaire is  likely to have.

[Jim Nugent]

Personally, I like the type of golf hole where the relationship of the drive to what is best (or worst) for the second shot is anything but obvious on the tee.

When this occurs on golf holes I feel it almost forces golfers to think better in what may be termed "whole" hole strategies (what Max Behr called "strategic unity") instead of just the risk and reward consequences of single shot increments.

How do you learn the best and worse ways to play such holes?  By playing many times, in varying conditions?  

Any examples of this type of hole?  

[TEPaul]

"How do you learn the best and worse ways to play such holes?  By playing many times, in varying conditions?"

Jim:

Yes, of course. That would seem to be the most effective way to learn how to read a golf hole and play it, don't you think?  

"Any examples of this type of hole?"

There is. There's a particular hole at my course which I guess is fairly subtle, at least to a fair number of golfers, I suppose. The reason I say that is about eight years ago I wrote a design evolution report of my golf course in which I also wrote how I felt various golfers should play each hole.

And a number of members came up to me and explained that on one particular hole they realized, as a result of reading my report, that they had been playing the hole wrong for years, in some cases for decades.

I asked each of them how or why that was and was consistently told that they had hit what they felt were good shots which consistently came up wanting at the green end.

This particular hole had very little shot dictation off the tee.

I then asked each and every one if they'd ever considered trying to play the tee shot to the other side of the fairway (as I said in my report) instead of in a direct line to the hole?

Each of them said they never had.

I guess I could've asked them all why it was they failed for so long to learn from their strategic mistakes, and certainly as they felt they were hitting decent shots, but I felt that would perhaps be a bit rude or demeaning.  

[JESII]

#13 Tommy?

#5 could be my only other guess, but the cant of the fairway would tend to take care of any ball landing up the right side...

[TEPaul]

"#13 Tommy?"

You're a smart guy---a very, very smart guy!

You should do some architecture in your spare time, in my opinion. Come on down to Del with me one of these days and see if you can design a hole or two. PaulC is the editor but he's a guy who encourages ideas.

[Sean Walsh]

Also from Geoff's site today.

"We are planning and building not to penalize very poor strokes, but rather those which are nearly good."
A.W. TILLINGHAST


Seems to be just about perfect in terms of differentiating between what I understand Strategic and Penal to be.

- http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/

[JESII]

"#13 Tommy?"

You're a smart guy---a very, very smart guy!

You should do some architecture in your spare time, in my opinion. Come on down to Del with me one of these days and see if you can design a hole or two. PaulC is the editor but he's a guy who encourages ideas.

I don't know Tommy, based on his posts on here I'd say PaulC is a bit too straight laced for my tastes...if I'm going to butt my nose into someone's business I have to know that at the end of the day I can buy 'em a drink and maybe get into a real barnburner withem'. Think PC can handle that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jonathan,

It's hard to believe that Olgilvy just discovered Risk-Reward.

Sean Walsh,

AWT was referencing the "marginal" shot, whether it be intentional or inadvertant.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Yes, I think PaulC can handle you buying him a drink as well as any kind of barn you want to burn. Straight-laced? Are we talking about the same guy??

[Josh Smith]

Tom P.

      Not directly on point, but this is Bill Coore speaking about doubt, more about short game options, not so much tee shots or individual holes like the discussion above does.  Thought I thought it would be interesting to post nonetheless.  

         Here he is speaking about options at Pinehurst 2, "People don't realize, the more options you give a good player, the harder it is to play the shot"  Coore says.  "So he makes a decision, and as he's standing over the shot, he's thinking 'Am I doing the right thing?'"

         He had a few beauties (quotes) from the Jaime Diaz, Linda Hartough Hallowed Ground book.

Josh

[Mark_F]

Jonathan,

It's hard to believe that Olgilvy just discovered Risk-Reward.

Sean Walsh,

AWT was referencing the "marginal" shot, whether it be intentional or inadvertant.

It's difficult to believe that Ogilvy is quoted correctly.

The words attributed to him just sound so pat and convenient.

An interview with John Huggan last year was almost nauseating in its earnestness.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()