[Tim Nugent]

Tom Paul,  the more I think about your premise the more I like it. (Does this mean I'm on the verge of having an open mind? ) It all fell into place when I put it in the context of the handicap system. Perhaps that's why I favor links courses.  Shorter hitters tend to be more accurate than long hitters so on a 6400 yds links course (like Prestwick) my wife who is a 22 will probably beat me (a 12) because she will be 180- 200 down the middle and I'll be 240 somewhere else.  If we were playing from the same tees, her 10 strokes would be hard to overcome.  She killed me at St A when 40 mph winds sent me all over the place (had to stop hitting driver, it was blowing around on my backswing).

I was taught that 80-90 yds is about the max on forced carries, so we seem to be in the same ball park.

[TEPaul]

"Matt:
I think you are miscast in the role of "Joshua Crane" in Messrs. Paul and Crosby's obsessive re-creation of the Behr-Crane debates."


TomD:

I don't know about Bob but I was only trying to be humorous in casting Matt Ward as some latter day Joshua Crane. I don't believe the two had that much in common.

It's too bad most just can't see much in those Crane/Behr debates because they both essentially outlined a couple of fundamental concepts or constructs relating to golf that were pretty diametrically opposed. And those concepts and constructs even if perhaps a bit less about actual differences in architectural arrangments than some of us might have first thought were definitely poles apart in the perception of such things as luck and fairness even considering how slippery those two things are for most people to put their fingers or minds on.

But just know that for every golfer you have ever seen who SERIOUSLY considers that he has somehow been treated unfairly by a golf course is essentially a Crane disciple and is in his camp and any golfer you have ever seen who just doesn't do that is a disciple of Behr and an advocate of his philosophy about golf and architecture.

From what you have said about architecture and the complaints of pros and such and how you feel about all that, YOU, Tom Doak, are a good and true-blue dues paying Behrian! Aren't you just delighted to finally realize that?  

[Anthony Gray]

  I am a 12 handicaper and I do not recal seeing something I thought was unfair. Maybe the tree in the layup area at 16 at Sawgrass.

  What do you think is unfair?

  Anthony

[BCrosby]

To be clear, my aligning Matt with Joshua Crane was not intended as a put down. Crane was a brilliant, interesting and able guy. In fact he represented then (and his heirs represent now) the dominant view of what makes for good golf design.

In fact I would categorize most of my dear beloved golf buddies here in ATL as Cranians, though they don't know it. They would disagree with almost nothing Matt has said above or elsewhere.

Such views are perfectly legitimate and make for a nice neat package. I just happen to think they are misguided.  

Bob

[TEPaul]

Tom Paul,  the more I think about your premise the more I like it."


TimN:

Don't you just though?!  

I'll start walking you back through time so you can see the perceived obstacles today to doing this kind of thing again. However, you should also see seemingly all of them are nothing much more than a series of sort of artificial solutions and fixes to this one and only fundamental physical inequality amongst the entire spectrum of golfers (distance) that have been laid on golf and architecture over time. you should also be able to see that even though most or all of them may've been well intentioned somehow at the time that in the end they may never have been necessary in the first place and that over time all they ALL really did is massively complicate both golf and most certainly golf architecture.

Do the handicap systems of the world today play into all this too? You bet they do. I think there is a far more NATURAL way to go about even that. I think you will also see why some modern terms and ideas and perceptions such as GIR and even par (not necessarily course par but hole par) exaccerbate the whole thing.

But the real underlying point to all this is ironically and apparently counter-intuitively it just may make the job of architects an easier one to accomplish and put this entire single physical capability inequaility---eg distance differentiation----right where it really is naturally and always should have been. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

My point was a simple one -- proportionality doesn't mean 100% predictability. It does mean that courses which provide no predictability cannot be deemed great. The very essence of the architecture is meant to provide a means by which proper execution -- at various levels and with different avenues -- can succeed. If all good shots are penalized and all poor shot are rewarded then the very nature of the design itself needs to be called into question. And, I might add, it need be 100% of the time for such a designation to apply but if such situations are happening more times than not.

No doubt the bad bounce and hop are part and parcel of the game. The main point I made - was that quality architecture doesn't provide the same type of reward or penalty but can distinguish between such levels based upon the manner of the execution itself. Clearly, better players want no such luck involved and I don't concur with that finding. But, there is a proper place for quirk and other such related items that interject randomness into the equation. The key is for such items to be more of a lesser issue than a dominant one, in my opinion.

BCrosby:

I always enjoy people recognizing the contributions of others but your last line really spelled it out for me -- "they are misguided."

Really ?

It seems, if I may with all respect, indicate a bit of an elitist connotation that only a blessed certain few understand (you and others) and the rest are simply pedestrians wandering around without a clue.

Thanks Bob for helping me out.

George:

I have not said people should agree with me but the so-called analysis applied to Black Mesa astounds me for the lack of clarity when provided. I've called people to task for the lack of clear specifics which when it's provided is often a quick one-sentence of something along the lines of "I like this" or "I don' like this." People have made assertions about the penal nature of Black Mesa that is not true. The course APPEARS to play harder than it actually does. Unfortunately, too many people can't really understand that dynamic and bark back at me that I am the one who is clueless.

Yes, George, if you wish to trash Black Mesa or any other course because it doesn't fit your needs (preferences whatever they may be) so be it. I have simply provided a very rigorous counterpoint to those who have failed to highlight the many positive aspects of the course.

To paraphrase you --  mine are wrong and yours are right, in your book.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

I have talked with Jim Urbina for about 15 years (ever since he saw St. Andrews) about the idea of building just one tee per course.  But, since we know how much resistance there would be, we've settled for building a couple of courses where there aren't any formal teeing grounds, and trying to build holes which work for every player from every tee.

(Obviously, that's pretty hard to do from the back tees, especially if your client wants the course to be reasonably long from the back tees ... you would have to mow a lot of fairway back toward the tee to make it work.  Old Macdonald may be the closest we've come yet; I think a decent woman golfer (15 handicap) could play it from all the way back.)

You are correct that the ramifications for that sort of architecture are HUGE.  For example, it makes one NOT a fan of grandstanding optional-route fairways because they become obvious for what they really are:  architectural pandering to one set of players who can carry the ball a certain length.  Bunkers are no longer classed as "unfair" because it is no longer assumed that the hole is designed around the bunker, but instead that every player will have to deal with his own set of bunkers.  It is really an enlightening experience to think of the course in this way, and those two months I spent in St. Andrews had an enormous impact on that way of thinking.

BCrosby:  I am sure Crane liked the bumps at Royal Mid Surrey, because they were all laid out parallel to the fairways, not inserted randomly into the middle to cause a drive to kick sideways as at Tetherow.

And lastly, Matt:  Can you give an example of a "course which provide no predictability" that is considered great by ANYONE?  Can you even cite an example of a course which "provides no predictability" at all?  I can't really imagine one.

[TEPaul]

"If all good shots are penalized and all poor shot are rewarded then the very nature of the design itself needs to be called into question."

Matthew:

Come on now. If any golfer actually tried to claim that all good shots were being penalized and all bad shots were being rewarded, that should probably call into question that golfer's basic Intelligence Quotient; and not about golf----period. I might even wager it could be less than 27 (his IQ that is).

Would you not agree with that?

If not he would not just be Joshua Cranian, he would be more like Joshua Crane Frankenstein!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

I simply stated a generalized comment. Clearly, great courses by the very nature of their wherewithal to reward good play and penalize poor play don't have that issue.

The issue is to what degree randomness becomes the central feature when playing. That's the issue at-hand when speaking about proportionality.

If good shots are not rewarded and poor shots are not penalized on a consistent basis -- and at varying levels -- then the very nature of playing the game is turned upside down. Unfortunately, those who are enamored with quirk and rub-of-the-green outcomes sometimes become a bit over infatuated with such elements, in my mind.

p.s. Tom, Tetherow was quite fair in all the different shots I saw played there when I visited. Bad bounces did happen -- as did good ones. It amazes me people will knock the Oregon course but if the same thing happens at St. George in Sandwich or TOC it is OK.

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I think the difference between the contours at Tetherow [which, in fairness, I have not seen] and the contours at Royal St. George's are that the latter are natural, and have been there for a long time, so people are somewhat more willing to accept the bounces that happen.  That's one reason I like using natural contours as much as possible -- I know I already have one strike against me (my course is new) and I am hoping not to fall behind 0-2.  Nobody is very good at hitting the 0-2 pitch.

I am still hoping you'll offer some course as an example where randomness "becomes the central feature when playing."  I'm not sure I have ever seen a course even approaching that, but I would love to know what you consider to be one so I can think more about it.

[BCrosby]

BCrosby:

I always enjoy people recognizing the contributions of others but your last line really spelled it out for me -- "they are misguided."

Really ?

It seems, if I may with all respect, indicate a bit of an elitist connotation that only a blessed certain few understand (you and others) and the rest are simply pedestrians wandering around without a clue.

Thanks Bob for helping me out.

Matt - I did not mean to put on the high hat. My apologies if it came off that way. I have written a long piece on the Crane/Behr/MacK thing. It will appear fairly soon, probably here. Let's pick up the discussion then.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

From what I can tell, golf magazines and newspaper articles from as far back as the early 1900s were discussing making golf courses more/less testing or more/less equitable etc, but it was a discussion that almost always took place in the context of the best players in the world.  And this was at a time (at least in the early 30s version of the discussion) when the Members Tees at Augusta were at most 25 yards in front of the Championship Tees.  The interesting thing is that, today, it's the "Members" who are most often asking for more testing courses...

Peter

[George Pazin]

Yes, George, if you wish to trash Black Mesa or any other course because it doesn't fit your needs (preferences whatever they may be) so be it. I have simply provided a very rigorous counterpoint to those who have failed to highlight the many positive aspects of the course.

To paraphrase you --  mine are wrong and yours are right, in your book.

Thanks for providing such a clear example of what I mean.

I never once trashed BM. I have said many many good things about BM. I simply said I don't think it is very forgiving, specifically for the high handicap golfer, which was the very question asked. Yet, since I disagree with you on this one point about BM, you say I trashed the course and my many many many posts on the subject lacked the rigor that your many many many posts provided.

That's pretty much the definition of NOT being open minded.

[Kirk Gill]

Let me first say that what follows may be idiocy. Just so we're clear.

Matt, when you talk about penalizing the poor shot, and rewarding the good shot, I immediately get what you mean.....until I really start thinking about it. I don't mean to be overly arcane, but I'm going to make the assumption that you mean a "good shot" as defined by what is required to score well, or advance the cause of scoring well on that given shot. Given that the shot has achieved what was needed at that time on that hole, how can it possibly be that it has not in some way reaped whatever reward might be available? If there is another place to hit the ball on that hole that yields a better approach, etc. (in other words, yields a better reward), then wouldn't a shot placed there be, by definition, a better shot?

Aren't poor shots, then, simply shots that do not fulfill the requirements needed on that shot, and therefore reap no rewards?

Maybe what I'm asking for, as a simple cave man, is examples of where a good shot is not rewarded, or where a bad shot IS rewarded. It seems to me a conundrum.

Is it merely that the AMOUNT of reward isn't sufficient to make hitting a better shot truly worthwile? That there needs to be more in it for the better golfer to shoot for? Or perhaps that the lesser shot is not humbled to the proper and desired degree?

I believe my mind to be open, but it gets a little confuddled in there sometimes...........

[TEPaul]

"From what I can tell, golf magazines and newspaper articles from as far back as the early 1900s were discussing making golf courses more/less testing or more/less equitable etc, but it was a discussion that almost always took place in the context of the best players in the world.  And this was at a time (at least in the early 30s version of the discussion) when the Members Tees at Augusta were at most 25 yards in front of the Championship Tees.  The interesting thing is that, today, it's the "Members" who are most often asking for more testing courses..."


Peter:

In the last year or so I've done a ton of reading of old newspaper and magazine accounts and reviews of golf courses of all types and it seems to me the majority of those articles are pretty good at outlining what purpose a club seemed to want their course (courses) to serve.

There is no question at all that a lot of those clubs back then (and throughout the app century old history of golf in America) also called for courses that could provide a so-called championship test. That kind of thing probably had a whole lot less to do with what the majority of the membership wanted to play on a daily basis than what it wanted to offer in the way of the reputation of their club or course as a tournament venue for some of the best.

Merion is an interesting example of a club that clearly saw early on that they wanted two distinct types of courses----one a championship course and the other for what Alan Wilson called "the nine and ninety." He even allowed as he always preferred the latter as did Hugh Alison when he saw it even if both had a good deal of respect for the other Merion course for the basic purpose it could and regularly did serve as a championship or shot making TEST!

Clearly the most extreme as a challenging test for the very good golfer, at least in the mind of its architect, was Pine Valley which for many decades had the reputation as the hardest course in the world. It's no secret either that Crump really didn't want the high handicapper around that place and was often fairly bemused that any of them actually enjoyed playing it and getting the tar pounded out of them by it.

If Crump had seen some of the criticisms on here and elsewhere that PV should never be considered "ideal" architecture because it in no way accommodated everyone, I have very little doubt he would have responded; "So what?"

But even he was thinking and planning at another extreme as don't forget he was getting ready to build another golf course down there JUST for women just before he died. But even that one was intended to be for the best of the woman golfer.

[TEPaul]

Kirk:

I really do hope your well written post #164 gets some worthwhile answers to your questions. I've also been wondering, and for years, how Matt thinks any golf course is capable of penalizing so many "good golf shots" and rewarding so many "bad golf shots" but at this point I think I'm afraid to ask again.

I will give you a couple of examples of how some may think that kind of thing happens (though I doubt Matt Ward would agree with them).

One of these holes is really famous and the other one is pretty well loved by all the people who know the famous course. They are the redan and the so-called punchbowl (#16) at NGLA.

Under what I consider to be ideal F&F conditions (nothing excessive) on the redan if a golfer hit his tee shot to the middle of that green (most all pin placements on that hole are from the middle to the left because of the green's right to left cant particularly on the right side) almost without fail his shot will go off the green to the left and low side.

Is that penalizing a "good shot?" I don't think so because the appropriate way to play that hole in ideally F&F conditions is to bounce the ball off the fairway kicker immediately to the right of the green. Could someone then claim a shot like that not even hit at the green is rewarding a "bad shot?" I don't think so but others might.

And then the punchbowl 16th. The fact is if anyone fired an approach shot right into the middle of that blind green they would almost always be just fine but it is very possible to fire the ball onto the rough covered steep bank way up to the left of the green and almost invariably the ball will caroom left and sometimes end up very close to the flag.

Is the latter situation rewarding a "bad Shot?" I don't think so but others might. If I am down in one of those two huge fairway bowls with my approach with nothing to see but the sky I always tended to try to go a bit left because I knew if I did most all the time my ball would caroom right and onto the green and sometimes very close. There's very little penalty for missing the approach shot right but once it hits the ground over in that area there is no way at all it could find its way onto the green.

I hope that kind of example helps you understand these kinds of things and maybe Matt Ward will pick up on them too and offer his opinion on them.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I can understand the differentiation you provide on natural v man-made but the randomness of the former doesn't give it a free pass when odd bounces and the likes happen.

I've played Tetherow and I didn't find the odd bounce here or there to be a major strike against the course. Kidd provided a number of different attack angles in which varying players can use as they see fit.

The issue w Tetherow is less with the tee and approach shots and more about the savage nature of a number of the greens. For many people it is the issue of a few of the greens that lies at the heart of that discussion about the course.


Kirk:

A good shot is one that fits what the architect has provided for a given situation on a given hole -- for a given type player. Great holes don't have just one way to play them. They provide multiple attack points -- often times for a range of skill levels. What is ideal for a Tiger Woods is one thing ... what is ideal for a 20-handicap player is quite another.

The reward one gets depends upon a variety of elements. Those seeking optimum reward are likely going to have to put forward a bit of risk in order to attain what it is they seek to achieve. There are different levels of reward on any given shot and the player(s) are going to have incorporate such decision making on a host of factors -- their skill level being a major consideration.

Great courses provide a range of return on the shots played. It's not just one result or the other. There is a sliding scale, if you will, in terms of receiving the ultimate reward and conversely the ultimate penalty.

Take for example the 13th at Augusta. It offers a plentitude of options and the player must decide what works best for him. Those playing in the Masters have a desire to reap the highest of rewards -- an eagle. In order to do the execution must be of the highest level - starting at the tee itself. Those who can sling a ball around the corner still must handle a difficult side-hill lie and be sure to hit the 2nd high and soft to a tough target. Those who don't wish to go for the green can still opt for a safer 3rd but then the ball must be positioned accordingly. The pitch is not an automatic because the length of the shot must be superbly calculated. Rewards and penalties on such a superb hole are a constant element on the hole. The rewards do vary depending upon the risk taken -- and the successful execution provided.
 
You ask for an example where a good shot is not rewarded. Well, when someone hits the green in two at Augusta's 13th there's no guarantee the ball will not run out and leave the putting surface from the rear area and then force the player to handle a very delicate pitch back to the putting surface. No doubt the player handled a daring situation but the good shot was just not "good enough" to reap what it is he sought.

On the flip side -- players sometimes get a fortunate bounce or "rub-of-the-green that allows them to gain an advantage when in all probability the outcome should have been far less. A great example is Fred Couples winning the Masters in 1992 when he played the 12th hole and his poor shot still stayed up on the bank -- when just about any other poorly played shot would have been a certain wet one for sure. Couples made the most out of his situation and parred the hole and won the event. He played a poor shot but the result proved otherwise. Architecture of the highest level cannot provide for 100% certainties in all situations -- nor am I advocating that it should.


George:

How bout this -- we disagree on BM. End of story.

George, you missed my point by a country mile. Black Mesa APPEARS harder than it actually plays. If you played the course a few times it's likely (assuming your mind is open to such things) you might have a revisionist feeling for the course itself. Stranger things have happened. Before getting out of sorts -- consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your take on the course comes from a limited exposure when compared to someone else who has seen otherwise and played with people of the handicap level you represent and said so to me.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Thanks for your last post about ANGC (and the Masters) but a number of us have seen that course in person and certainly seen it on TV for years so we are all pretty well aware of most of its risk/reward (good shot vs bad shot) ramifications and even nuances but thanks anyway for the details in that vein.

What I don't get, though, is the meaning of these remarks by yours above:

"It does mean that courses which provide no predictability cannot be deemed great........ If all good shots are penalized and all poor shot are rewarded then the very nature of the design itself needs to be called into question."

I've seen and played a whole lot of golf courses, Matt, (maybe not as many as you have but who has? ) and I just can't remember a single course which I felt provided no predictability and I have most certainly never seen a golf course where all good shots are penalized and all poor shots are rewarded. Can you at least cite for us one or two you've run across in your travels and then some of us might catch the meaning of your remarks quoted just above?

Thanks

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:

No fair!  I asked him first!

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:

No fair!  I asked him first!"


Oh come on! Don't talk to me about fair on GCA/DG. He addressed a post above to me, I think, and just because we're both TOM I think you swiped the answer from me. On second thought, maybe it was addressed to you in which case I'm just sorry I didn't swipe the answer to it from you. Only problem with me these days is my answer may be "nonsense or some such thing." 

Do you think there is any future for "nonsense" in golf course architecture, Mr. Doak?

"oow-oow-weee, me and Julio down by the school-yard, laadeeda"

[John Kirk]

I really struggle to identify individual features which are inherently unfair.

Let's try this one:

A par 3. 195 yards long, with a broad, rounded mound that is part of the front of the green, centered a couple short of the surface.  Virtually every ball which lands short of the mound gets redirected away from the green.  The only players that can reliably score on this hole are those who can hit a soft 180 yard shot.  The studs hit 5, 6, or even 7 iron.  Some medium strong players can hit 7 or 9 wood, or a 4 hybrid.  Otherwise you are out of luck, so to speak.

Another extreme example:

A 450 yard par 4, way downhill, through a big valley, with the grass cut short everywhere.  Every drive that moves forward starts rolling down the hill to a big bowl 275 yards off the tee.  Beyond the bowl, the fairway falls off sharply into a pond.  Is that unfair?

[John Kirk]

I enjoy my Sunday afternoon nap in front of the television, watching the final round of PGA Tour action.  One thing I look for is how bunched up the leaderboard is the final day.  I believe a bunched leaderboard indicates that the course may not be doing its job distinguishing the best players that week.

The tournament that seems to separate the players best is the U.S. Open, where the standard deviation between player scores is regularly 1st or 2nd highest each year.  But they generally do that with heavy rough and perfectly placed bunkers to make the course as unfair as possible for pro players.  Furthermore, I don't like that kind of golf.  It's no fun slashing out of high grass.

[John Kirk]

I like my golf like a baseball game, mostly predictable but sometimes you see a rare play.

A great player can usually separate himself by hitting high shots that land softly.  There's much less that can go wrong, since the ball won't roll far.

I had a conversation with a member of a high profile golf club which just opened last year.  He brought a well known veteran professional to the course, who played and enjoyed the course.  After the round, the pro said he liked the course, but immediately commented on two features he didn't like.  One was a broad mound short right of a green, which made it almost impossible to get at a front right pin.  The second was a swale-mound combination on the left edge of one landing area for drives, which redirected pulls and hooks into the rough, or worse.

My main reaction was irritation that the pro felt compelled to offer suggestions for change after one play, rather than merely enjoying the course for what it is.  Many of my scratch playing friends see golf this way, too.  They are more than ready to criticize the design, as if they know better.

[John Kirk]

The further we delve into this discussion, the more value I place on beauty.  I'll assume the architect is trying to offer a balanced test, and I'll do my best to minimize my score.  The bad bounces will even out.  Give me firm, fast turf, so I can watch the ball roll, and some beautiful scenery inbetween the shots.

174 posts and no real world examples of unfair holes.  You may not like them, but they are all fair. 

[PThomas]

John, i'm late to this thread - a very good discussion, btw - but when i saw your post about No unfair holes i thought of...

the 7th at the muni in my town of Oak Lawn at Stony Creek GC...a par 4 of about 400 from the tips....trees all down the right and right behind them is OB...the fairway pinches down pretty to a very narrow landing zone..trees also on the left side, but they are a bit farther back, where there is rough before you reach them...and behind those trees is a lateral i believe!

it gets worse...your 2nd or third shot must cross a wide deep hazard aroudn 90 yds from the green...the trees pinch in on both sides...but there is one tree on the right that REALLY causes a problem

this hole seems quite unfair to me...i am not a great player, but i can shoot 85 sometimes, so i'm not a total bum....i dont slice the ball, but what about the many slicers who do have to play this piece of crap hole?  I wish i had the ball concession on it, cause you can lose them left , right and in the hazard

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()