[Phil Benedict]

At the risk of GCA apostasy, I tend to think of great architecture in terms of shot-making demands rather than strategy.  For example, Chip Gaskins' thread on playing Augusta reminded me of what I like most about the 13th - the need to radically shape your drive from right to left and, if you are successful with the drive, approach the green with a long-iron from a severe hanging lie.  The half par characteristics of the hole are appealing, but it's the shot-making requirements that make the hole for me.

I think Matt Ward's thread on long par 3's is another example.  Hitting a long iron or fairway wood/metal approach is challenge for even low handicap golfers, so executing this type of shot is rewarding at virtually all skill levels.  Incorporating a long club par 3 into a course adds to the shot-making dimension of the overall lay out.

[JESII]

Phil,

Agreed, but what happens when the shot isn't made?

The Penal versus Strategic definitions used on here seem fully reliant on what happens to the ball when the shot is not pulled off...do you think it should be?

[Phil Benedict]

Jim,

In some ways I think "strategic" = easy and "penal" = hard, particularly since wide fairways are so important to strategic architecture.  What makes TOC more strategic than Oakmont, all that room on the left, also makes it easier.

[Michael Dugger]

Encourage golfers to think about hitting a high shot or running it along the ground and you have a much more interesting game.

Which is why target golf is horsebleep.  There is only one way to go about things.

[Phil Benedict]

Encourage golfers think about hitting a high shot or running it along the ground and you have a much more interesting game.

Which is why target golf is horsebleep.  There is only one way to go about things.

Michael,

So any forced carry shot such as the second on the 13th at ANGC is bad?

[Phil McDade]

Well, no one's forcing anyone to go for the green at 13th at Augusta in two.

Sure, most do, for reasons that have to do not only with the hole itself, but its placement in the routing and how the hole is played by others. Having said that, the defending Masters champion did not go for the green in two at 13 in any of his four rounds, I believe. The beauty of 13 (have not played, but studied it quite a bit) is that the 3rd shot after a layup is tricky as well, with an uncertain/uneven lie to a green filled with swales and humps, and bunkers (and Rae's Creek) lurking all around.

The 13th at Augusta may be the greatest strategic par 5 in golf. A truly daring drive (see Nicklaus, 4th round, '86 Masters) nearest the creek provides the golfer with a flat lie, not a hanging one, and opens up the green considerably for a long second shot, and makes Rae's Creek slightly less of a threat. Yet a bailout second shot from a less-than-ideal drive (right-center to right fairway, with the accompanying hanging lie) is likely to end up in the bunkers or a deep swale, making an up-and-down for birdie uncertain.

I think the 13th combines both -- great strategic merit along with precise shot-making demands, no matter how the hole is approached.

[Peter Nomm]

Phil - by shot-making do you mean ONE best way to approach the shot, or allowing multiple options to achieve the goal?

For example, one of my favorite holes is #8 at Sand Hills.  The player can hit a drive and then bump it right around the bunker, left around the bunker, flop it over, or can lay way back and have a full shot in.  To me the opportunity to pick your approach, and then hopefully execute it, is what makes "shotmaking" exciting.  Courses that present this, which I would consider to be called "shotmaking", are my favorites to play.

[Bob_Huntley]

Well, no one's forcing anyone to go for the green at 13th at Augusta in two.

Sure, most do, for reasons that have to do not only with the hole itself, but its placement in the routing and how the hole is played by others. Having said that, the defending Masters champion did not go for the green in two at 13 in any of his four rounds, I believe. The beauty of 13 (have not played, but studied it quite a bit) is that the 3rd shot after a layup is tricky as well, with an uncertain/uneven lie to a green filled with swales and humps, and bunkers (and Rae's Creek) lurking all around.

The 13th at Augusta may be the greatest strategic par 5 in golf. A truly daring drive (see Nicklaus, 4th round, '86 Masters) nearest the creek provides the golfer with a flat lie, not a hanging one, and opens up the green considerably for a long second shot, and makes Rae's Creek slightly less of a threat. Yet a bailout second shot from a less-than-ideal drive (right-center to right fairway, with the accompanying hanging lie) is likely to end up in the bunkers or a deep swale, making an up-and-down for birdie uncertain.

I think the 13th combines both -- great strategic merit along with precise shot-making demands, no matter how the hole is approached.

Phil,

I witnessed Nick Price's 63 in the 1986 Masters. He did not hit a par five in two shots during that round.

Bob

[Phil Benedict]

Phil - by shot-making do you mean ONE best way to approach the shot, or allowing multiple options to achieve the goal?

 

I mean that in certain circumstances there is a preferred or challenging shot that the player is rewarded for executing.  There are obviously multiple ways to play the 13th at Augusta but the architecture clearly favors a sweeping draw off the tee followed by a long-club approach to the green.  

Another obvious example is the 16th at Cypress Point.  One of the reasons it's great is that it offers the opportunity to hit a great (for some players heroic) tee shot to try to hit the green in regulation.  It wouldn't be the same hole it were a mid-iron tee shot.  Again, you can par the hole by hitting to the bail out area to the left and getting up and down, or you can accept the challenge of trying to hit a great shot.

[Phil McDade]

Phil:

I'm not entirely sure the architecture of the 13th at Augusta clearly favors any one particular way to play the hole. The best place from which to play the second shot is tight to the creek on the extreme left of the fairway, about the only place on that fairway where one can be assured of a level lie. That requires not just a controlled draw, but a controlled draw of the highest order (one reason presumably why Nicklaus was there in the final round in '86), because overcooking it just a bit leads to water and a probable bogey/double-bogey on what is surely a half-par hole. It's truly risk-reward, because the risk is great but the reward is the only level lie on the fairway, plus the further advantage of opening up the green and lessening the penal nature of the creek.

The easier play off the tee is right-center of the fairway, not a terribly difficult shot for the pros. But it leaves that hanging lie, brings Rae's Creek more into play, and makes the green more shallow than from the extreme left of the fairway. Faldo's second from there in '96 (to set up a birdie), when the outcome against Norman was still in doubt, is one of the great long-iron second shots I've seen, and gets at (I'm guessing) the kind of shotmaking skill that you've outlined.

But even the third shot -- and the strategy of how you get to that third shot with your drive and second shots -- is one demanding a lot of skill. I'm not surprised that someone like Johnson -- a great wedge player who's not real long -- would choose the lay-up option, because it played to his strength as a shotmaker. But I expect Tiger to never lay up at 13, because his length means he'll always be able to cross the creek in two, and his scrambling/short-game shotmaking skills (from bunkers, in and around the swales near that green) are unmatched.

To me, that's what makes it such a great hole. It not only has tons of strategy, but it has strategic value for a range of players.

Bob:

I never knew that about Price's 63; that's really interesting. Do you know if he scrambled his way to birdies that day on the par 5s by going for them in two, or did he play them drive, layup, wedge/short approach? I do remember him lipping out on 18 -- a full 180 job -- for a 62 from about 30 feet.

[Peter Nomm]

No question the heroic shot, especially when we pull it off, is a great pleasure.  But even a short wedge spun back to the pin may be considered heroic.  I will admit most guys aren't going to go home bragging about making par by laying up left on Cypress #16.  But even with the possibilty of the heroic shot, that hole offers a disciplined golfer the chance to play to his strengths and make his par.  

Options are great.  One option may be the opportunity to fly the creek at Augusta #13, and another may be the great pitch shot after a lay-up that uses the countours of the green.  That is why these are all great holes and are so fun to debate as to why we love them!

[Phil Benedict]

Phil,

Faldo's shot in 1996 is exactly what I am talking about.

Tiger's Master's preparation includes practicing the kind of sweeping hook called for on 10 and 13.  

One other anecdote on shot-making at that hole.  Last year during the third round many players, including Tiger, laid up to the right-center of the fairway, maybe 80 yards from the pin, which was on the back left tier of the green.  Almost everybody came up short on their approach, with their ball rolling back down to the front of the green.  Tiger's wedge shot came in at a low trajectory, bounced once and ended up 3-feet from the hole.  That's shot-making.

[JESII]

What courses best exemplify this idea of allowing the player to take the easy route for a while but always end up demanding a "SHOT" to have success on the hole?

When I say "SHOT" and "success" it does not mean birdie for everyone...it probably does for me, but the it might mean par for the 10 - 20 handicap or bogey for the guys about 20.

These courses have to ask you to take a risk, but they never demand it.

[Phil Benedict]

Jim,

Certainly TOC allows you to take the safe route to the left on many holes.  On any given hole that might not affect your score but over the course of an entire round a player who flirts with the right side and consistently executes the shots will likely shoot a lower score.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil
For me, a good way to think about this question is to imagine it in terms of a truly excellent player who can play all the shots, and play them consistently. And in that case, I think a course that 'suggests' what shots need to be played is probably more interesting than a course that 'demands' what shots need to be played, even if (especially if) both courses penalize misses and mistakes with the same severity. I've been reading the Huntington Valley stretch of posts on TE's bunkerless thread and thinking what a great melding of thinking and execution it seems to require.

Peter

[Sean_A]

What courses best exemplify this idea of allowing the player to take the easy route for a while but always end up demanding a "SHOT" to have success on the hole?

When I say "SHOT" and "success" it does not mean birdie for everyone...it probably does for me, but the it might mean par for the 10 - 20 handicap or bogey for the guys about 20.

These courses have to ask you to take a risk, but they never demand it.

Sully

Isn't this essentially what a Golden Age course is all about?  And is the moaning about the altering of these course essentially folks decrying the elimination of choice?

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

What courses best exemplify this idea of allowing the player to take the easy route for a while but always end up demanding a "SHOT" to have success on the hole?

When I say "SHOT" and "success" it does not mean birdie for everyone...it probably does for me, but the it might mean par for the 10 - 20 handicap or bogey for the guys about 20.

These courses have to ask you to take a risk, but they never demand it.

Of the ones I've played (and I'm pretty sure I've played a lot fewer high-profile courses than you...), the one that comes to mind is Langford/Moreau's Lawsonia. Ran has a really good line in his GCA write-up that rings true -- Lawsonia is really interesting and challenging from 50 yards in (moreso than Bethpage Black, in his view).

I've always regarded Lawsonia -- and to a large extent L/M's lesser-known Spring Valley in Wisconsin -- as real "second-shot" courses, in that the demands on the golfer are really on the shots into the greens, because of the nature of the greens (severely pushed up), the green surrounds (deep bunkering in the case of Lawsonia), and internal contours/tilt of the greens.

Lawsonia (and Spring Valley) gives the golfer a fair amount of comfort on the tee, as drives aren't terribly demanding and there is a clear path toward the safer play. But eventually, you have to hit a well-struck shot to those greens, and the penalty for missing is often quite severe. (Playing to one of Spring Valley's pushed up greens this past fall, I hit a mid-iron to a back-right flag, pushed it a bit, and the green just shrugged it off, and sent it 30 yards to the right of my target. I probably missed my line by less than five yards, and srambled to make a double-bogey.)

[JESII]

Sean,

Not sure what you mean with that post...not challenging it, just asking you to expand on it a bit.

How have course alterations eliminated choices for players?

[JESII]

Phil,

these "second shot" type of courses are so much more interesting than first shot courses it's not even close. It's why I always say holes are, and need to be, defended at the green. It definitely looks like L & M's courses are.

[Phil Benedict]

I'll try to make one other point on this topic. I think that holes that have great strategic value can be played with shots that have low shot-making value, but also offer the option of being played in an aggressive manner that require execution of high value shots.  Everyone gets dewey-eyed about the 10th at Riviera, but one way to play it is with a mid-iron tee shot and a wedge approach (to an admittedly small target, but it's still a wedge).  Not all that demanding as far as shot-making requirements.  The other way to play it is to use a longer club off the tee, which if successfully executed is a great shot.

[John Moore II]

JES-
Yes, second shot courses are much better than first shot courses. However, something that is rarely seen, is a 1st and second shot course. That being a course that requires the player to hit at least an average, if not a good, shot with every swing he takes during the round. Those courses are few and far between, however, for the better golfer, they are the most fun to play (even though the scores aren't always that great )

[BCrosby]

I've always been dubious about talking about "first shot" or "second shot" courses. How does that work?

I would think that on good holes the nature of any shot is a function of the preceding shot in at least two ways - the choices you made with respect to that shot and its quality.

I would think, further, that to the extent that linkage is weak, to that extent the hole is less interesting. That is, to the extent that each shot is a separate, distinct test, to that extent you've got an uninteresting hole. A hole that is a pure first shot or second shot hole might be a hard hole, but just being hard ought not be enough.  

Bob

[TEPaul]

PhilB:

I don't know if what I'm about to say makes any sense to you or even to me!

I can kind of see it but it's just hard to say.

It seems to me that one of the undeniable and perhaps unavoidable fundamentals of the early "strategic" architects was the FACT that the weaker or less good golfer should be given "a way around" BUT that that type of strategy, in most cases, should come with the expectation of playing any hole in at least one more shot!!

On the face of it that remark and thought may seem simple or unimportant but I believe it is incredible important and those early architects understood that and so did far more golfers back then than seem to today.

Over time some factors have clearly eroded or even corrupted this reality and perhaps fundamental of golf and architecture and it has come to very much confuse things in golf and architecture via golfers' expectations.

The fact is that in more recent times far more golfers of differing levels of abilities are expecting to somehow get to the same places in the same amount of shots.

And what is the biggest contributor to this modern perception?

Probably the reality of multiple tees compared to the old days.

I do not believe that many golfers will ever come to understand the true beauty and temptation of risk until they can see more clearly the perhaps numerous ways to avoid it but with a greater expectation of paying a stroke at least for it in what they can clearly see is a more conservative strategy of their own choice.

This is a perception in golf (and architecture) that has been slowly lost over time that the old architects understood so well and frankly depended on in what they designed and made and how they designed and made it.

This probably makes little sense to you but anyway.

This kind of fundamental concept is also why I admired so much the intent of say Geoff Shackelford in his concept of the 12th hole at Rustic Canyon.

He was almost trying to force golfers into thinking in a "whole hole" risk/reward context rather than in an incremental and single shot risk context.

The beauty, and sophistication of that particular hole is that it is a very short one and most any golfer should see they could reach the green on their second shot even if their tee shot placement which had not been directly penalized put them in a most difficult position for the next shot.

The reason the 13th at ANGC is such a great hole, even for the great player, is not exactly the shot value of the shot of going for the green in two but how beautifully balanced that high shot value shot is in a risk context with the option of laying up and perhaps expecting to play the hole in an additional shot.

Let's face it, ANGC's #13 is a beautifully designed hole in many many ways but it could never be what it is if what is fronting that green was not only water but of a certain penal water design that even comes down to the height of the water level in Rae's Creek.

[JESII]

BCrosby,

I agree, I think we were just talking about more weight to one shot or the other...not all of the weight.


TEP,

I do not disagree with a word of that post, but I must ask...do you think the game (or architecture) today would be improved if we all still played from one tee?

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
I do not disagree with a word of that post, but I must ask...do you think the game (or architecture) today would be improved if we all still played from one tee?"

Sully:

In some ways and some very important ways I most certainly do. I guess I can understand some of the drawbacks but in the over-all I think it could have some extremely important and perhaps beneficial effects.

This is certainly not to say it would be easy to do architecturally because I don't think it would be but it certainly might force architecture to produce more of what we seems to call "strategic" golf and architecture---eg much more multi-optional architecture particularly for better players and middle range players. Of course the real problems would lie with how to accommodate pretty poor players and very short ones.

With that latter level of players it would certainly serve as a reality check and although some might look at that as a good thing I do admit that others would probably look at it as a very bad thing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()