News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
"The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« on: July 09, 2008, 11:22:26 AM »
I played Ballyneal last week with a core group of three players, plus a rotating cast of GCA extra.  Although we played different sets of tees, the back tees were used on many holes.  One day, we played the 4th hole, the downhill par 5, from the toughest tee box, which creates an awkward line of play to the fairway.  After being infomred of the proper line (left edge of the right bunker), John Mayhugh, a medum length hitter with a USGA handicap index of about 9, slightly mishit his drive, but in the proper direction of play.  I can't remember if it was a toe-hook or slightly skied, but it was a straightish drive that would fly 180-200 yards on flat ground at sea level.  A good miss.

Immediately after striking the shot from this difficult tee box, there was consternation among the players and caddies that the shot was in jeopardy of not carrying the native brush, but I felt otherwise and issued a statement I regularly use:

"The architecture should accommodate that shot.  That one should be OK."

Sure enough, the ball cleared the junk and found the fairway at the bottom of the hill with 10-20 yards to spare.

As a member of both Ballyneal and Stone Eagle, both Doak courses which require forced carries, I have noticed the consistent accommodation for some of the common mishits:

Straight Pull
Pull Slice
Toe Hook
Straight Push
Skied Tee Shot
"Drop Kick" Drive

I believe Tom Doak and his crew work hard to think through a reasonable result and penalty for common, minor mishits, and that each general level of golfer is considered from each tee box.  For example, I am under the impression that they look at a tee box and say, "Well, what if a strong player hits a pull here?  Let's stick him in a bunker where he can't see what's he's doing."

Another example of this thinking would be the newly restored 3rd hole at Pasatiempo.  There's a new bunker about 100-120 yards from the shortest tee, which is superfluous to the advanced golfer, but offers the senior or weaker player a great challenge, an the thrill of success as they play the 180 yard uphill hole as a par 4.

The important concept is to keep everybody in play as much as possible, with fair and engaging recovery options.  John Mayhugh can play the back tees at Ballyneal quite easily, and I've watched Tommy Naccarato and David Moriarty, both with handicaps around 13, manage their way around Stone Eagle from the back tees.  Tommy got around without losing a ball on one occasion.  I like playing Stone Eagle from the back tees and Ballyneal from most of the way back (my handicap is around 0-3), and my 10 handicap friends and I can enjoy the course from any set of tees we choose.

Certain gross misses need not be accommodated:

Pull Hook
Duck Hook
Big Slice

But for less talented players with higher handicaps, additional misses should be accommodated:

Topped Drive
Sclaff (Hitting It Fat)
Weaker Shots

Build me a course where the scratch and 12 handicap player, or the 12 and 21 handicapper, can play from the same set of tees and face an enjoyable challenge together.  Any forced carry from the back tees over about 180 yards is too far.  I cringe when I read about 245 yard forced carries on new courses.  I believe my friends with handicaps around 10 enjoy the challenge of playing the back tees and trying to break 85-90, as long as they don't feel immense pressure to kill several tee shots.

I also dislike courses with carry bunkers guarding the best line of play, all at the same carry distance.  My sense is many architects apply a straightforward and consistent formula to bunker placement off the tee, which punishes a very specific player.  I played a course last winter where the best line of play was guarded by a carry bunker on almost every hole, and that carry distance was almost always 245-250 from the second set of tees, or just out of my reach to be worth the risk.  I have a unreasonable disadvantge on a course like that.

The wide variety of common mishits should be considered from each tee for each level of player, and reasonable, varied and interesting penalties should be established for those misses.  The architecture should accommodate those shots.

 

Michael Dugger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2008, 11:24:29 AM »
You just introduced me to a whole new golf vernacular, John, thank you!

"Drop kick" drive??? 

The dreaded Sclaff!!!

Brilliant
What does it matter if the poor player can putt all the way from tee to green, provided that he has to zigzag so frequently that he takes six or seven putts to reach it?     --Alistair Mackenzie--

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2008, 11:38:20 AM »
Nice post, John - just another reason I always seek out your thoughts on architecture.

As comprehensive as your list is, I get the feeling I could add a few more shots to it. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2008, 11:40:50 AM »
John:

We don't think about it on every tee in the detail you describe, but my general point of view is that a ten handicap should be able to get around the course from the back tees (in a bit more than ten over par, without losing many balls), and we try to accommodate a good miss as you have recognized. 

This is one of the main things that very good players seem to dislike about my courses.  They seem to like "relentless" courses (to borrow a word from another thread) where the 10-handicap can't compete with them ... with at least a couple of back tees that the 10-handicap can't play from unless he hits his best drive of the day.  They seem to want birdies to result only from big drives.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2008, 11:55:40 AM »
This is one of the main things that very good players seem to dislike about my courses.  They seem to like "relentless" courses (to borrow a word from another thread) where the 10-handicap can't compete with them ... with at least a couple of back tees that the 10-handicap can't play from unless he hits his best drive of the day.  They seem to want birdies to result only from big drives.

My theory of what golfers want is a course just tough enough in their own particular areas of strength to separate them from those slightly worse than themselves - but no tougher. Then they call it goofy golf.

The accompanying corollary to this theory is that most golfers want to clearly see why they ended up with their particular result. It goes along with your NGLA observation about taking 5 plays for some golfers to get the brilliance.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2008, 12:08:13 PM »
John: First of all, I am willing to bet that nearly all golfers believe they hit the ball off the tee further than they really do.  That being said, I do also believe that it is important for an architect to consider many different types of players when designing a course for membership play, as opposed to championship play.  It isn't that hard to put those nearly impossible carries on a course where only the very best and longest players will be able to deal with them.  It takes a great deal more thought and ingenuity to offer challenges to players of different levels while still giving them the opportunity to play together from the same set of tees.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2008, 12:10:15 PM »
Wow, I can only imagine John's pre-swing thoughts as he sizes up a hole for the first time...

"OK, on the left side, I can straight pull it or pull slice it, but I can't pull hook it...on the right side I can straight push it, but I better not hit the big slice...Middle looks safe, but should I go with the the skied tee shot or the drop kick? Nah, both to risky, better stick with the sclaff..." ;D

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2008, 12:13:09 PM »
Only a matter of time before Bob Huntley chimes in with his beloved "foozle".  I still don't know what a foozle is.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2008, 12:38:03 PM »
Only a matter of time before Bob Huntley chimes in with his beloved "foozle".  I still don't know what a foozle is.

If we ever tee it up, you'll see it live.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2008, 12:45:09 PM »
Only a matter of time before Bob Huntley chimes in with his beloved "foozle".  I still don't know what a foozle is.

If we ever tee it up, you'll see it live.

"What a pity."
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom Huckaby

Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #10 on: July 09, 2008, 12:53:56 PM »
John:

Great stuff.

But should this just be limited to tee shots?

Wouldn't superior architecture also consider various misses on approaches?

TH

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #11 on: July 09, 2008, 12:57:42 PM »
Tom,

Sure.  However, the phrase has been uttered after a less than perfect tee shot in all instances.

Tom Huckaby

Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #12 on: July 09, 2008, 01:02:27 PM »
Fair enough.

Methinks it needs to be uttered after approach shots.  I have a feeling that at the best courses, it could be.  But maybe not.

TH

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2008, 01:14:40 PM »
I'm not discounting your thoughts on the issue, Tom.  It just so happens that the 5-10 times I have uttered the phrase, it came on the tee box.

The tee shot is unique in that play begins at the same place each time.  We don't usually huddle around the player as he hits his second shot, so we can pass judgement whether the architecture deems his effort worthy of accommodation.

[put emoticon here]

Tom Huckaby

Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2008, 01:21:08 PM »
John:

It's a hell of a great phrase.

 ;D

No fear of emoticons here.

TH

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2008, 01:22:19 PM »
John Kirk kindly leaves out the corollary description that "The architecture should NOT accommodate that shot."  I think it got used (or at least thought) a number of other times.

Ballyneal was the first Doak course that I have played.  I agree that it was playable from the back tees.  The only issue that I experienced was being far enough back from my longer-hitting playing partners it was hard to keep from over-swinging in an effort to keep up.

I thought that Ballyneal got more demanding the closer I got to the green.  There was still considerable room to miss, but to take advantage you needed to be approaching from the right area.

JohnV

Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2008, 01:24:29 PM »
You just introduced me to a whole new golf vernacular, John, thank you!

"Drop kick" drive??? 

The dreaded Sclaff!!!

Brilliant

John and I used to play some golf with a guy who was one of the longer hitters I saw in the early '90s who drop kicked every tee shot.  He was getting the proper launch angle and didn't lose much clubhead speed.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2008, 01:27:24 PM »
Only a matter of time before Bob Huntley chimes in with his beloved "foozle".  I still don't know what a foozle is.

"Foozle" was the term Bernard Darwin invented / appropriated to describe the abject mishits of rank amateurs.  He used the term throughout his classic, "Golf Courses of the British Isles" as he took the reader around the great courses of the early 20th Century. 

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2008, 01:33:34 PM »
You just introduced me to a whole new golf vernacular, John, thank you!

"Drop kick" drive??? 

The dreaded Sclaff!!!

Brilliant

John and I used to play some golf with a guy who was one of the longer hitters I saw in the early '90s who drop kicked every tee shot.  He was getting the proper launch angle and didn't lose much clubhead speed.

This is too funny.

I'm currently in the drop kick mode with my driver and woods and its working out pretty well for me.  It tends to straighten out the club head and while I'm losing a little distance, I'll glady take the straighter tee balls.   ;D

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #19 on: July 09, 2008, 01:42:07 PM »
Only a matter of time before Bob Huntley chimes in with his beloved "foozle".  I still don't know what a foozle is.

"Foozle" was the term Bernard Darwin invented / appropriated to describe the abject mishits of rank amateurs.  He used the term throughout his classic, "Golf Courses of the British Isles" as he took the reader around the great courses of the early 20th Century. 

Is there any chance Sir Boab borrowed the terminology after a round playing 'wolf' with the great writer/man?
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #20 on: July 09, 2008, 01:46:35 PM »
Only a matter of time before Bob Huntley chimes in with his beloved "foozle".  I still don't know what a foozle is.

"Foozle" was the term Bernard Darwin invented / appropriated to describe the abject mishits of rank amateurs.  He used the term throughout his classic, "Golf Courses of the British Isles" as he took the reader around the great courses of the early 20th Century. 

Is there any chance Sir Boab borrowed the terminology after a round playing 'wolf' with the great writer/man?

I prefer to think he had in mind (was he clairvoyant?) our play of the 18th at Longshadow last year. (Daley's 7 beats McBride's 8 to halve the match  :P )

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2008, 02:28:53 PM »
I can foozle my way to a kissed sister with the most foozled of foozled old foozles...  :P

Perhaps another new coined term... you were 'bamfoozled"!  :o
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2008, 02:38:05 PM »
I can foozle my way to a kissed sister with the most foozled of foozled old foozles...  :P

Perhaps another new coined term... you were 'bamfoozled"!  :o

If I remember, Dick, your specialty was not a foozle, but a rockseeker.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2008, 06:58:49 PM »
John Kirk:

With a little extra thought and consideration I think the title you put on this thread just could be one of the most interesting to think about I've ever seen on this website.

I think you should win the Max Behr award for this thread's title.

Peter Pallotta

Re: "The Architecture Should Accommodate That Shot"
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2008, 08:45:03 PM »
John - thanks for your (usual) excellent post.

I have a question. You say, "the architecture should accomodate that shot". I'd ask "and THEN what?"

What I mean is, I take it that Tom D spends a lot of time on finding ways to provide variety,  options and, let's call it, a "range of recoverability" for shots around the greens, i.e. some spots around some green-sites will be very hard to recover from, others easier etc.

My question is, when the 10 handicap playing from the back tees at Ballyneal has a good miss off the tee, what happens to this "range of recoverabiity"?

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, or that it's a good question even if I am -- but if you could take a shot at answering that would be great

Peter


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back