[Michael Dugger]

Gents (and gals)

I've been racking my brain over something lately which I am hoping some of you can help with.

We all know the standard definition regarding penal vs strategic golf course design.  But lately I've been hearing more and more folks talk about "flirting" with a hazard to gain an advantage.

Tom Doak mentioned once that the correct play on one of his holes is to hit it as close to the fairway hazard as possible, for that offers the best angle into that green.

My question is.....what "school" of thought does this type of design fall into? 

To my mind it's very easy to grasp a basic penal hole being one where you stripe it down the middle "or else."

A basic strategic hole is where you have a bunker in the middle of the fairway, for example, and hit short, right, left or over it to "crack open" the green.

But this "flirting" with danger really has me flummoxed.  What say the esteemed treehouse?  And....what do you think of this sort of design?

[TEPaul]

You probably need to read most of the articles of Max Behr because this is basically his theme on "strategic" design. Flirting with a hazard to be rewarded with an advantage on the next----eg "Line of Charm" ( Line of Instinct), "indirect tax" architecture, "Whole" hole strategies is all there in dramatic detail.

[George Pazin]

Pretty much sounds like textbook strategy, as written about by George Thomas, Tillinghast, etc.

[Ulrich Mayring]

In my eyes that would be the heroic style - bite off as much as you can chew. Strategy to me is about distinct options.

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

In my eyes that would be the heroic style - bite off as much as you can chew. Strategy to me is about distinct options.

Ulrich

Ulrich

I think of heroic as hitting over trouble when there is an alternative not to.  Strategic is skirting the trouble (that can't really be carried) for an advantage.  However, these days for the pros at least, they hit over trouble that was never meant to be carried.  The game is viewed very differently.  Even for wing bunkers guys talk about a carry distance to fly past them (rather than over them) so even penal trouble gets treated heroically these days.  I spose this is the reason more and more bunkering is slapped in all over the place until you get sand monsters like Oakmont etc. 

Ciao

[Jim Tang]

I would call that type of design strategic, which is just the type of golf design I love.  A good golf hole will usually have several ways to play it.  If you want to gamble a bit and take a line that brings trouble into play, then you should be rewarded with a good look at the green or a better line into the green for the second shot.

Howver, if you play away from trouble, then the second shot should be more difficult ie. a longer approach, a poorer line into the green, a greenside bunker that needs to be carried.

I think Doak does a great job with this type of design.  The first at Pacific Dunes is a good example.  You can bang a driver over the hill at the first to get a better look at the green.  Of course, you bring into play the huge sand dune on the right in doing that.  Or, you can hit an iron or 5 wood off that tee and play to the fat of the fairway.  But, then your second shot is blind to a small and well guarded green.  Pick your poison.

[JESII]

In my opinion strategic design offers challenges and opportunities horizontally and penal design offers challenges and opportunities vertically.

Strategic = does this position provide a better angle for the next shot based on my individual limitations?

Penal = what distance do I need to hit it to be safe?

Strategic allows for mishits so it is better liked...every Penal shot is a pass/fail test.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I would say a forced carry without options is penal!  If you have a very safe option - say a 50 yd wide safe fw as a distinct alternate - then its heroic, which is really strategic on (with apologies to Tom Doak who doesn't like this phrase) "steroids."

I can see where MD might think that type of strategy is really penal.  If nothing else, I tend to stay away from repeating that strategy too often.  As mentioned, it fits the classic strategic definition of the Golden Age guys. But in recent times, many gca's have wondered about the total validity of that idea (see Paul Daley's earlier volumes).

Most good players wonder why they should ever hit a driver near a hazard on purpose, when hitting the green with a mid to short iron, even from a angle without a frontal opening, is now fairly easy for most greens.

The frontal opening at best allows them to club down when between clubs for the uphill putt, whereas carrying a greenside bunker might force them to up club, and hit more spin.  Others might purposely play to allow them to aim the approach away from the greenside hazard and draw or fade it back in, much as they might tee it close to OB and aim away.  Or aim at the fatter part of the green, but they just don't need a frontal opening with 50 yds of run up anymore. (some average players do, though) 

The real green defense that sets up a necessary angle is probably up slope - hitting into it from one side and having it fall away from the other.

But, some would argue that if you in essence can't hit the green from anywhere but next to the hazard, is that any different than asking the player to hit the middle of a narrow fw?  Is that really an option - hit the other side of the fw and you can't hit the green realistically?

And, do options only really accrue if there aren't two more or less equal ways to reasonably access a green, not a good one and a very poor one based on where your tee shot lands or your basic shot pattern? 

Guarding the inside of the hole twice makes a good strategy on longer doglegs where playing safely away from the bunker on the inside corner gives you a longer shot.  Isn't a distance penalty of 10-30 yards enough without also having to carry a bunker and hold a green falling away from you? (Certainly more true the longer the disparity gets and for longer holes over shorter holes, where 150 isn't much harder than 140)

I think, given today's game, that we shouldn't necessarily be repeating the "hit it near the hazard" strategy without really thinking about how it works now, even if the GA guys seemed to think its the cats meow.

[Lester George]

The "Flirting School of Design", I like the sound of it.

Lester

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lester,

Paul Cowley probably would call it the "skirting" shcool.

[Lester George]

Jeff,

You are correct, sir!

Lester

[Scott Witter]

Michael:

This is a good question and of course depending on ones interpretation or understanding of these principles, you will get varied opioions

Nonetheless, IMO this IS strategic design, for you are given the choice to play close to the hazard, as close as you like really and still have a good play to the green.  The choice, the option is there, whereas, in Penal design the choice is typically made for you, unless you are a fool.

Ulrich said "Strategy to me is about distinct options"  I can't agree with this at least not with the "distinct" portion, for the strategic options in the context that Mr. Doak is being referred can be quite subtle, preferrably so IMO.  Sure, there will be times when designers make choices obvious, but I admire those designers who are able to 'show their cards' in a subtle manner with several alternatives with each bringing a different level of risk, trouble and hopefully fun!.  The best are those who do so throughout the routing in ways that are not predictable from hole to hole or course to course.  This leaves players off guard--searching for the line-of-charm that suits their game, imagination and present state of mind.

"In my opinion strategic design offers challenges and opportunities horizontally and penal design offers challenges and opportunities vertically.

Strategic = does this position provide a better angle for the next shot based on my individual limitations?

Penal = what distance do I need to hit it to be safe?"

JES II:

This is interesting.  I think this theory does have a relationhip to strategic and penal principles, but I don't believe one can make such a direct connection since in all shots, both the vertical and the hoizontal come into play affecting the ball, literally, and the player physically and psycologically when addressing their shot.

Michael:  Curoius, why do you feel the need to neatly categorize this design scenario?

[Anthony Fowler]

Strategic!

I will partly repeat what others have said, but this is the best type of strategic design there is.  I am almost tempted to say that it is my definition of the "strategic" school.

Michael, what you have described as your version of strategy involves a small discrete number of options.  In the "flirting" situation, there is a continuum of options, which involves much more interesting strategy IMO.  Great examples of this are the 5th at Merion, 4th at Pacific Dunes, and 14th at Rustic Canyon.  The more you challenge the hazard on one side of the fairway, the better your angle into the green. 

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I would say a forced carry without options is penal!  If you have a very safe option - say a 50 yd wide safe fw as a distinct alternate - then its heroic, which is really strategic on (with apologies to Tom Doak who doesn't like this phrase) "steroids."

Jeff

Isn't this what I said without the extra strategic bit you added - which I don't think is right btw?

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

In my mind strategic is about distinct options. The keyword here is distinct.

Hitting over a diagonal lake and biting off as much as you can chew is not necessarily strategic. You have to hit over the lake, that is the only option - there is no other shot. You can decide the length of the carry, but it is still a shot over a lake to an angled fairway. I would call that heroic, as there are no distinct options, but a multitude of variations of one shot.

Strategic to me means that there are truly alternate routes that require different types of shots and that were carefully planned out by the architect to provide sensible risk/reward ratios. So in that sense a shot over a lake can also be strategic - e.g. if there are two distinct routes. Say that you basically have the right part of the lake very wide and requiring a massive carry, whereas on the left side there is hardly any carry at all. I have to decide between two distinct routes: driver, wedge or iron, 3 wood.

In a heroic situation many golfers will not dare the extreme play, but will also not want to play it totally safe. They will usually go for a middle-ground type of solution and that will fail to provide more than mediocre results. This would be like taking driver on a conservative angle in order to clear the lake easily, but then hitting it through the fairway. However, for an expert player these holes are fun, because they do not restrict.

Now, obviously, there are many holes that fall somewhere in-between. The situation is rarely as clear-cut as in my description. But I am thinking "heroic", when it looks like I am on my own and "strategic" when the alternatives are clearly presented.

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich:

I think you are calling "strategic" what most of us would call "heroic" -- where you have DISTINCT OPTIONS.  You're a hero if you choose the dangerous line.

To me a strategic hole is one where the decisions are 1000 shades of gray.  An example:

a)  If I could carry that bunker in the right corner of the fairway, that would be ideal.
b)  If I can't carry it, but I could land even with it and scoot past it, that would be next best.
c)  I'm not that sure how straight I can drive it, so I'd better play a bit more out to the left for safety, even if every bit I play to the left makes the angle to the flag tougher.
d)  Hey, this isn't that long of a hole, at some point I would be better off playing short of the fairway bunker on the right than playing past it on the left and having that tougher angle.  But, I have to get pretty close to the bunker so I won't have too long of a second shot.


I like that kind of hole better than the black-and-white alternate fairway hole you are describing.  There's room for both in any course, but I would rather have more of mine than of yours.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, my definition is not really mine, I paraphrased it from Michael Hurdzan's book. I have the book in German, so the following is not the original text, but a loose translation:

"The main point of strategic design is that every hole has alternate routes to the green with distinct obstacles of various difficulties."

"This compromise [between penal and strategic design] was called "heroic" design. The idea was to present obstacles as penal, but give everyone a chance to play over them as he pleases."

So strategic is not restricted to alternate fairways - that would only be the most extreme form. The example you described might in that sense be strategic, because it offers not three or five, but four distinct routes that were carefully planned out by the architect.

Ulrich

[Ajay Yadav]

Ulrich:

To me a strategic hole is one where the decisions are 1000 shades of gray.  An example:

a)  If I could carry that bunker in the right corner of the fairway, that would be ideal.
b)  If I can't carry it, but I could land even with it and scoot past it, that would be next best.
c)  I'm not that sure how straight I can drive it, so I'd better play a bit more out to the left for safety, even if every bit I play to the left makes the angle to the flag tougher.
d)  Hey, this isn't that long of a hole, at some point I would be better off playing short of the fairway bunker on the right than playing past it on the left and having that tougher angle.  But, I have to get pretty close to the bunker so I won't have too long of a second shot.


I like that kind of hole better than the black-and-white alternate fairway hole you are describing.  There's room for both in any course, but I would rather have more of mine than of yours.

Does this approach work better for holes of a particular length?.... for eg. I am as comfortable hitting a 5/6 iron as I am hitting a 7/8 iron to a similar sized green..... (maybe there is a slight difference as I might shoot for the pin with a 8 iron, but less likely to do so with 7 or 6 or 5 iron)....

Point I  am making is that unless the carry over the bunker results in a 9 or a wedge shot, choosing between a 7,6,or 5 iron by carrying or not carrying  is not much of a choice for the better or good  (but not very good) golfer.....

Based on all the places I have played, I find that this kind of a design works well with short par 4s (when the choice results in a second shot with a wedge/ sand wedge vs a 7/8 iron) or for long par 4s (where the choice results in a second shot with a 3/4 iron vs a 5/6 iron).

On the average par 4s, a similar risk reward is sometimes achieved by not offering a clear view of the green... or bring something like tree  branches etc...to come in play for the longer second shot (a  result of the shorter tee shot).

And what does it mean for the design of the hazard creating the strategic choice?.... unless the bunker lip forces one to play a shorter club than required to get to the green... are bunkers any longer that penal?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ajay,

I have seen (maybe here) Brad Faxon say that a risk is typically worth a 3 club difference, but you use a two club difference in your examples.  2 clubs is a tweener!  I feel most players would also take more risk to get under about 180 yards vs. something longer.  Tour pros maybe 190-200.

On the short end, typically, many golfers don't care to get less than full wedge distance, although the multi-wedge system that is currently popular seems to have reduced this little strategic dilema as well.

Wind affects that decsison, too.  A downwind shot may really need the frontal opening angle to even have a chance to attain the green.

I agree hazard type and depth affects strategic thinking - too shallow and golfers say "why not?".  Too deep and golfers say "why take the risk?"  Unless of course, its the last few holes and they really, really, need a birdie.

[Ajay Yadav]

  I feel most players would also take more risk to get under about 180 yards vs. something longer.  Tour pros maybe 190-200.

You captured what i was trying to say... since the trade-off needs to be within 170-180 yards vs being 200+ yards away, the hole for the better / good golfer needs to be 440-450+....from the tees they are teeing off from.

the trade-off on a reachable par 5 (with two good shots) is probably 220-230 yards (5/3 wood shot) verus a 250+ yard second shot...

On the short end, typically, many golfers don't care to get less than full wedge distance, although the multi-wedge system that is currently popular seems to have reduced this little strategic dilema as well.

I see a lot of golfers take the risky shot if the trade-off was within 100-110 yards vs 140-160 yards.... in fact, IMO, compared to a better/good golfer,  the mid-high (15-20+) handicapper is more likely to take a drive and attempt the risky shot off the tee as he values the within 100 yard shot  (compared to a 140+ yard shot) much more highly than the better golfer.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Yes, but they rarely make risk/reward holes for bogey golfers. That would mean asking for something like a 180-200 yard carry in order to shorten the approach from 150 to 100 yards. So that would leave us with a hole of 300 yards on the risky route and 350 yards on the safe route. Haven't seen too many of those holes

Ulrich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()