Early-Round Gut Checks: Up or Down?

[Mark Bourgeois]

gut check [guht chek] n. a test of one’s nerve, courage, or determination.

Gut checks are holes that ask you to make a decision based on your assessment of how well you're playing, specifically whether you can pull off a difficult shot.

Like the Tiger Nike ad puts it, "Weak...or strong?"

Q1: Do you sanction early round gut checks as good design?  I know early round forced carries violate an unstated design "rule" - how many can say their range game = round game?

If the answer is yes, good design, then why don't you see it more often?!

Except…is Pete Dye Mr. Early-Round Gut Checker?  Is this one reason Pete Dye uses par 5s early in rounds? Very sketchy memory here, but doesn't Blackwolf River start with a gut-check par 5 then follow that a few holes later (5th?) with a gut-check par 3 (water down the right)?  I recall also the 2nd at Kiawah Ocean is a par 5 sort of gut check…

Other gut check examples:

1st Discovery Bay, RTJ. A par 5 that makes a sharpish left turn, the safe route is up the fairway corridor right. Gut check time: blow it over the trees in the dogleg or try for the corridor even further left. The latter route, to achieve the fairway, demands flying water, bushes, and finally a wall of grass, with grass bunkers and rough waiting at the bottom.  Depending on the tees, the carry is roughly 245 yards to fairway, 230 or so to get past the major junk.  Reward is a go in two.



Not the best of gut checks because the left carry looked daunting to me. But still, it's a lot more than most first tees ask of the groggy golfer.

3rd, Rockport, Bill Coore. Short par 3. Huge green segmented roughly longitudinally by a swale, with water left. Gut check time: flags left of the swale ask whether you've got the short-iron game, right now, to challenge the water.



Q2: Besides alternate routes (think we all get that one), what are other tools of the gut-check design trade?  From the Rockport example, green segmentation appears one such tool…

Thanks,
Mark

[Matthew Mollica]

I like them but as a rule prefer there to be an option out.

I suppose I like to see them in the form of a reachable par 4, or par 5 as a get check, when the drive or second short respectively is tough to execute  A long par 3 may do it, as may a par 3 with a green complex incorporating an imposing hazard.

Matthew

[Jeff_Brauer]

Great question and I like the "rythm" of courses that have gut checks every fourth or fifth hole, starting at about hole 3 or 4.

I like options (A tempting bail out is what really creates the gut check, no?) but don't think a go for it par 5 or 4 is good early in the round for speed of play reasons.  Those are better at the 7-9 position in each nine.  The earlier one could be:

 an extremely long par 3 (like my 4th at the Quarry)

 a really tight Sunday pin (perhaps on a multi-tiered green) with the option to play to the fat middle being as extraordinarily easy as the aggressive shot is difficult. 
 
a pinched (under 30 yards) fw at driving distance, with a wider one at 2I-4W distance.

a moderate and optional tee shot carry (with advantages), but with a humongous bunker (think 4 at Royal St. Georges)

As always, just MHO.  Like bunker depth, its hard to plan exact sequence if you follow what the land gives you.

[Bob_Huntley]

Mark,

The way I'm playing,  there doesn't seem to be a hole anywhere that is not a "gut-check".

Bob

[JSlonis]

I know we talk about Pine Valley and Crump on this site quite a bit, but for me no hole exemplifies your question better than the 1st at Pine Valley.

The landing area for the tee shot is pretty wide, but the closer you hug the right corner of the dogleg and challenge the bunker, the shorter and easier your second shot becomes.  The true test though is in the approach shot.  The golfer is immediately TESTED right away.  Especially if the hole is located in the middle or farther back in the green.

From Ran's profile:
1st hole, 425 yards; Considered the finest 19th hole in golf, the 8,300 square foot green starts as an extension of the fairway and ends as a peninsula with sharp fall offs on all three sides. The demand for clear thinking is immediate: with the front portion of the green ample in width, is the golfer content to be on the front and take two putts to get down? Or is he confident enough to chase after the back hole locations where the green narrows? A wonderful dilemma posed by a bunkerless green site.

[George Pazin]

I'm in favor of early and often, which is pretty funny, given my rep as a high handicapper.

[Doug Siebert]

I'd love to play a course with a first hole like the Discovery Bay one.  If I don't feel up to it some days I can just cheat right a bit to where a straight ball just stays out of the trees, and if I pull or hook it a bit as I fear/expect that just puts me in position A (kind of an anti-strategy, but probably my best play off the first tee some days)  But that's a terrible hole for slicers.  If the trees over there weren't so dense, and the only real penalty was just making the hole longer, it might work for them.

The pace of play issue goes further than just having a reachable par 5.  If one guy in the group ahead has taken the bold route and is waiting for the green to clear, how the heck am I supposed to know when I can tee off there?  I can't see through the tees, so unless the starter has a camera view of the fairway to tell me when its clear or there's a forecaddie, I'm going to have it in the back of my mind that someone might be standing right where I want to go, and that's a recipe for disaster on any tee, let alone the first!

I think early gut checks are good, but there needs to be an appropriate bailout or safe shot for those who don't feel up to it.  Few people would want to start their round with a long forced carry or a narrow fairway with disaster awaiting on both sides.

Though I could see an advantage to having a forced carry on the first hole -- it might increase the chances of golfers choosing the correct tees.  Maybe if you have a 250 yard carry there are too many people who think they can carry that far who can't, but if they hit two balls each and splash them 30 yards short of the far edge, the starter has good ammo to make them play shorter tees

[Mark Bourgeois]

I like options (A tempting bail out is what really creates the gut check, no?) but don't think a go for it par 5 or 4 is good early in the round for speed of play reasons.  Those are better at the 7-9 position in each nine.

Oh, I hadn't thought of that -- you mean gut checks later in the nines as a good way to ensure a match is resolved without carrying on?

The earlier one could be:

 an extremely long par 3 (like my 4th at the Quarry)

You mean a par 3.5 hole?  Wouldn't that have the same pace of play issues?

Bob, I know that experience myself and Hemingway said it best. Tonight we are dreaming of the lions.

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

The Golf Club's 3rd hole now takes pride of place in my early-round gut checking experience. To wit:

On the left: Water, frightening bunkers, green sloping towards water and bunkers.
On the right: grass bunkers, grassy slope, everything going away from you.

The more aggressively you play the more likely a bad number (or letter). But the more conservatively you play the less likely even a par. It's not a question of bail out right, then a chip and putt for par. So a play to the right is an admission that you don't have what it takes.

Here's a pic from Ran's / John's profile:

[Mark Bourgeois]

...A tempting bail out is what really creates the gut check, no?...

Jeff, I'm not sure about this one. Maybe it's more about the certainty of a score on the bailout route vs the best possible and worst possible scores on the aggressive route.

If you make the bailout easy, yes, you swerve to avoid the big miss. The "gut check" is mild.

On the other hand, if you make the bailout hard maybe you still swerve if you see the cost of a miss on the aggressive side as prohibitive. Here the "gut check" is gut wrenching -- an admission of total chickenhood.

The best ERGCs ask what price you're willing to pay, in terms of a certain "loss" like a bogey on the bailout route, to forgo the opportunity to get par or birdie on the aggressive route.

I think to make the math work, if the bailout is hard the disaster on the aggressive side better be really bad, like deep bunkers and no drop zone (must re-tee).
Anyway, just my two cents.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm in favor of early and often, which is pretty funny, given my rep as a high handicapper.

You are not allowed to criticize Black Mesa anymore.

[Chris_Hufnagel]

For me and the courses I have been fortunate enough to experience, #2 at the Kingsley Club is a pretty tough gut check - what makes it worse is when you realize you have missed the putting surface and about to face a daunting challenge to make 3 or even 4 - you are usually holding just a 8 or 9 iron in your hand still...

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - nice. Just an aside: I think the great magic trick of the revered designer living or dead is managing to provide fairly frequent gut- checks to the tiger and the rabbit both, genuinely challenging the tiger and gently testing the rabbit but discouraging/demoralizing neither -- not the tiger by asking him to do the impossible, and not the rabbit by mocking him with too easy a challenge (which would only serve to re-affirm the rabbit's self-identification as a rabbit, and thus engender self-loathing).  It really does seem to me a rare and wonderful bit of magic.

Peter

[Matthew Petersen]

I like it.

As a player, they get under your skin a little bit and that's a good thing.

If you look at an early hole and think, "This would be such a birdie opportunity if it were #15 instead of #1 ..." then the hole is already in your head.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Chris, re Kingsley 2 is the miss you're describing the punishment for an aggressive go or the "certain loss" of the conservative play?

Peter, that's a very good point. I have familiarity with only two courses I would consider undeniably, stupendously great. When I've been on my game I would say every single shot but especially the shots starting after the tee shot (for non par 3s--on the 3s the gut-checking starts on the tee) are literally one wrenching gut check after another. Exhausting!

[Howard Riefs]

Big fan.

I like them but as a rule prefer there to be an option out.

Immediately thought of #4 at World Woods - Pine Barrens course, a great short par 5 that requires a "do I have it?" decision on the tee box. From Ran's course profile:

4th hole, 480 yards: One of very few holes in golf where all the player can say when standing on the tee for the first time is ‘Wow.’ The player is in the sand pits and faces a choice off the tee: play safe down the left and play the hole as a three-shotter or risk the 210 yard carry to the right, narrower fairway for a shot at the green with his second. This is a rare par five where the decision to go for the green in two must be made on the tee — it’s not just a case of waiting to see how good a tee shot the player hits before making the decision. Also, the dramatic raised green has a huge, fearsome bunker to its front right, angled perfectly so as not to interfere too much with a short-iron third but to make for a heroic second to the green.

http://www.worldwoods.com/golf/pine-barrens/course-tour


Photos from Joe Bausch's course tour:

...Most golfers playing WW for the first time really love the look of the 4th hole.

#4:  a fairly short par 5 (494 yards from the tips) that I still find to be a very fun hole.  The shorter hitters will play it left, the longer hitters play the drive right and really it become a nice tough par 4.

[Sean_A]

If the gut check be a hole be of high quality, early gut checks are dandy.  There is nothing like the gut check laid on the golfer at the first of Machrihanish.  North Berwick's 2nd too is a serious gut check.    

Ciao

[Chris_Hufnagel]

Chris, re Kingsley 2 is the miss you're describing the punishment for an aggressive go or the "certain loss" of the conservative play?

To answer your original question, I do enjoy an early gut check.  It can certainly test the character - if successfully navigated you are propelled into the rest of your round.  If you succumb, then one needs to pull themselves up to get the round back on the track.

As to your question above, I rarely am aggressive on #2 - I am thrilled with a par and happy with a bogey (albeit not as happy as when I bogey #15).

My play is usually long and a little right of center regardless of the pin position.  I believe the proper "misses" on the hole are either long and right or short and not too far right.  Missing either side of the hole brings the possibility of a big number into play.  Hitting the green surface anywhere brings a sigh of relief and then the goal is to two putt and get to the third tee...

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - if you didn't mind sharing, I'd be very interested in knowing which two courses you deem undeniably great.  You seem to have played golf in many places and at many fine/great clubs, so it would be cool for me to know what you rate that highly. (Of course, if you want to keep such information to yourself for the time being, I'd understand.  )

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter, no problem -- actually, it's three: Pinehurst #2, Royal Melbourne Composite and RM West.

It's true that I've traveled a lot but I haven't really played many courses. These are courses I feel I've played enough times (well, for RMC I've played it only once but have played the W and E courses a fair amount) to have formed a meaningful opinion (at least to me).

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Mark. And that's interesting in the context of your question.  Take Pinehurst or RM, for example - courses that, from what I read, are playable and enjoyable for a whole range of golfers/skill levels, and yet it appears that at least one if not both courses provided you enough gut-checks to keep you on your toes (in the best sense of the phrase) for the entire round(s).  Which is neat, i.e. gut checks and fun are not mutually exclusive!! 

[Mac Plumart]

Peter, no problem -- actually, it's three: Pinehurst #2, Royal Melbourne Composite and RM West.

It's true that I've traveled a lot but I haven't really played many courses. These are courses I feel I've played enough times (well, for RMC I've played it only once but have played the W and E courses a fair amount) to have formed a meaningful opinion (at least to me).

What? 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter, no problem -- actually, it's three: Pinehurst #2, Royal Melbourne Composite and RM West.

It's true that I've traveled a lot but I haven't really played many courses. These are courses I feel I've played enough times (well, for RMC I've played it only once but have played the W and E courses a fair amount) to have formed a meaningful opinion (at least to me).

What? 

Huh?

[Mac Plumart]

I'm shocked by the courses that You listed As great on your List of Excellent coures.

[BCrosby]

Mark - nice. Just an aside: I think the great magic trick of the revered designer living or dead is managing to provide fairly frequent gut- checks to the tiger and the rabbit both, genuinely challenging the tiger and gently testing the rabbit but discouraging/demoralizing neither -- not the tiger by asking him to do the impossible, and not the rabbit by mocking him with too easy a challenge (which would only serve to re-affirm the rabbit's self-identification as a rabbit, and thus engender self-loathing).  It really does seem to me a rare and wonderful bit of magic.

Peter

P2 - To echo Mark B, good post. Tempting the good player to take risks he isn't obligated by the course to take is part of the equation. You won't tempt him if the challenges are too difficult. The other side of the equation is dealing with the rabbit. I like your phrase "gentle test". A good course doesn't roll over and play dead for anyone, even the rabbit trying to play conservatively.

Too often these issues are talked about in the context of "fairness". I think that is unhelpful, if not actually misleading. It's really about setting the bounds for risk taking, on both the upside and the downside. In both cases the player picks his poison. Which means it's hard to complain ex-post that a feature was unfair. Good courses make those choices interesting and frequent, without regard to skill level or the 'equity' of outcomes.

I have always had trouble defining a bad course. I sometimes think, however, that a definition might start with the notion that bad courses overcook risks on the upside and/or undercook them on the downside. For better players the risks presented are too difficult to tempt. For the conservative, weaker player, risks are too modest or even non-existent.

Like Mark, the courses I am most fond of are those that cook up risks at the right temp. I've come to appreciate over the years how hard that is to do.  

Bob