[Scott Sander]

Hi.

New guy here.  Thanks to Mr. Morrissett for the opportunity to join the discussion.

I've long been curious about this topic:

Do architecture fans/aficianados/geeks tend to play differently than their heads-down playing partners?

Specifically, do you find yourself playing shots that the course "suggests" to your eyes, even when your personal skill set makes it an unwise strategic play?

I recently found myself staring down a semi-notable hole recently (Crooked Stick's "dogleg par 3" 13th) that I'd played a dozen times in my mind but never in real life.  It is somewhat like a reverse Redan in that it has severe consequences to the short/right and a green that kicks shots back and right.  It clearly asks for a bit of a cut to the short left. 

I don't have a truly consistent "bit of a cut", so for scoring purposes I should have hit my personal stock shot, knowing that it would run off and at least leave me a chance for a scrambling par.

But since I may only get to play that hole once, I really wanted to play it according to the prescription.  I needed the chance to see the reward the designer had in mind, knowing full well that the risk -an overcooked fade short or a double cross long left- could doom me. 

It was another reminder to me that I occasionally sacrifice score for experience. 

How about you?

[David Stewart]

I just recently played that hole and made the best double ever.  The pin was back right and I went right at it and just didn't hit it flush.  My ball hit the rocks in front and went about 50 yards back and right and into the creek on 14.  It is right by the bridge that you have to walk over after you hit your tee shot on 14.  Had to take a drop by that bridge and could not go at the green due to the trees.  Hit a pitch to the tee bed on 14 and then chipped onto the green and made my putt for a 5.  It was crazy.

[Jason Connor]

That's a fantastic question Scott.  Welcome to the board.

My answer is seldomly.  I have a few times, but not very often. But I'm not quite the player some guys here are (I vary from 12-14) so I basically have to play within my limitations!

But there are definitely times when I feel the GCA's call and I listen.  The most egregious example was a short dogleg left par 4 by Stanley Thompson.  It had been raining since the 12th hole and I was soaked.  We reach this short par 4, the 17th.  I decided to go for the green which required a big draw with my 3-wood.  While turning the club over in my hands to facilitate the draw while swinging hard, the wet grip slid out of my hands and the club went end over end into the small pond immediately in front of the tee.  I've never thrown a club in anger or frustration in my life.  But I lost that 3-wood that day.  I'm not even sure where the ball went.  I just walked to the clubhouse.

I'm curious, how did it work out for you.

[Bill_McBride]

We have a reverse Redan on our new course at Pensacola Country Club, #7, 245 yards from the tips, 215 from the tees I play most frequently.  As a short hitter, I like to play a cut to the left front and watch the ball roll onto the green.  There is a swale in the middle of the green, Biarittz-like, and it's fun to watch the best shots disappear into the swale and then reappear.

The downside is there's a downslope to the left and OB lurking beyond, so the doublecross pull is dead.  Most of the guys I play with just let fly with a long iron or FW wood.  I don't think it's much fun that way but probably safer.

Here's a photo of the green from out in front - you can see the subtle slope that makes the Redan play possible.  Since the green doesn't slope front to back all the way, it's not a true Redan but still a fun play off that front left slope.

[Scott Sander]

Jason-
Thanks for the warm welcome!

That sounds like one of those "this'll be funny some day... just not this day" moments.  Sorry for your loss - I hope the relationship was nearing its end anyway.

In my case, I was still having the internal conversation in the middle of my backswing and bailed on my commitment to the shot.  I ended up hitting a straight push that left me 5 feet over the green, right where I "should've" been all along.

David-
That's a tough little pitch back from 14 - not much of the right side to work with from back there!  Nicely done.

[David Stewart]

David-
That's a tough little pitch back from 14 - not much of the right side to work with from back there!  Nicely done.

Yeah it was my first time playing there.  I didn't really even get time to enjoy the hole because my playing partners were done and I was still trying to decide what the hell the play was from behind the creek for my 3rd.  I'll definitely aim more to the left side next time!

[PThomas]

welcome Scott

i would think at least 95% of all golfers don't have the skill to do it

[W.H. Cosgrove]

With the clubs and balls of today, it is VERY difficult to play shots suggested by design.  

A real loss for the game which might change with the new groove rules.

[Ian_L]

I rarely go for a "baby fade" or anything like that because I know it probably won't happen.  I'm more likely to get it near the hole playing a smart shot at a slope and letting it roll at least partway to the hole.  Some people might say it takes the design out of the hole, but I think it makes me deal with my shortcomings and will hopefully inspire me to work on these shots in the future. (13 handicap)

[Anthony Fowler]

I think the architect has made a mistake if he has design a hole for a very specific shot to be played.  First, the variance in golfers dictates that most players will not be able to or will choose not to play the dictated shot.  Second, the game evolves so quickly that within 20 years you can expect that distances, spin, club selections, and shot strategies will be completely different.  For both of these reasons, almost everybody who plays the hole would miss out on the architect's intended experience.

Scott, a great architect would likely respect a player for getting the ball in the hole as best as possible given their skill set.  I wouldn't assume that one particular shot is the intended way of playing the hole.  Holes that don't fit your eye or your shot type are often a lot more fun and strategic than those that do.

[Jordan Caron]

Being a drawer of the golf ball for 15 years I finally learned how to hit a cut shot this year.  It has certainly increased the enjoyability of the game as I can now look at a left to right hole and have no fear.  So yes, more of often then not I will play the shot that I think the architect called for. 

[Jon Heise]

I generally play a high draw that shoots left as it lands.  Hit my shot and try to give myself a good next shot.  ~9hcp.  While I can occasionally hit a slight cut, I dont usually try it unless the shot allows for some room to miss.  While I am always looking to see what the "intended" shot is, I've got to hit what I hit and deal with the result.

[John Nixon]

I think the architect has made a mistake if he has design a hole for a very specific shot to be played. 

How does the dogleg fit into your philosophy?

Oh, and welcome, Mr. Sander. 

[Jason Topp]

The best architecture does not dictate a shot but provides advantages for hitting a certain shot.  As a player you weigh the advantages against the risks and make your decision.  Good architecture makes that decision a tough one.

For me if a tee shot calls for a left to right shot (I normally hook) my decisions vary.  It depends on many factors, the biggest being whether I care about my score whether I will get a chance to try the shot again and whether I have any hope of hitting a fade that day.

[cary lichtenstein]

Being a drawer of the golf ball for 15 years I finally learned how to hit a cut shot this year.  It has certainly increased the enjoyability of the game as I can now look at a left to right hole and have no fear.  So yes, more of often then not I will play the shot that I think the architect called for. 

Teach me how. I have drawn the ball for 50 years and can't hit a cut consistenly to save my life.

I play to my strengths, even if I have to start the ball out over the water on 18 at Bayhill.

[John Burzynski]

welcome Scott

i would think at least 95% of all golfers don't have the skill to do it

I have always maintained this (and I am in the 95% category more often than not).

How many golfers can actually consistently hit a draw, fade, controlled shot on demand more than 50% or 70% of the time?  How many golfers are really be able to consistently place a ball on a specific side of the fairway, within even 20 yards of exactly where we are targeting on a drive, and do this 50% or more of the time?  Even with the shorter irons, most of us are less than accurate over a ten shot span.    Maybe a few small percent of golfers can hit an accurate draw 2 or 3 times out of ten times that they try, but otherwise most of us have less than accurate shots, at least for what we desire to hit.    

Sure, maybe we attempt to hit a fade off the tee and land a ball 250 yards away on the right side of the fairway, but I'll bet if you are honest with yourself, this type of designed or intended shot is successful less than 10 or 20 percent of the time.   That is not to say that the 'unintended' shot is necessarily bad, (maybe while intending to hit a fade to the right side fo the fairway to line up your second shot, you just hit the ball straight down the middle and still have a good second shot with a less desirable although clear second shot).

We all remember that one perfect shot of the round and think we can do it all of the time on call.

[Tom Huckaby]

The best architecture does not dictate a shot but provides advantages for hitting a certain shot.  As a player you weigh the advantages against the risks and make your decision.  Good architecture makes that decision a tough one.

For me if a tee shot calls for a left to right shot (I normally hook) my decisions vary.  It depends on many factors, the biggest being whether I care about my score whether I will get a chance to try the shot again and whether I have any hope of hitting a fade that day.


Sorry, but once again I find myself unable to do anything but quote Jason Topp, who sums this up so damn perfectly.  This is exactly how I play the game as well.

I do believe there are some in here who hit shots with the intent of experiencing all the "architecture" has to offer, however... the most famous being Tommy N. intentionally hitting a ball into the DA at Pine Valley.  But I have to believe those are the exception, not the rule.

TH

[David Stewart]

I agree with Tom H.  This is just a way to test the skill set of a golfer.  If we continue to use the par 3s at Crooked Stick as an example, 6 and 13 favor a fade and 3 and 17 would favor more of a draw.  This doesn't mean that someone who can only draw the ball can't play 6 and 13, even though the hole is "designed" for a fade.  You can still play those holes with a draw and be on the green.  You just may not be able to get at a pin that is back right unless you bring water/rough/bunkers into play.  This is really typical Pete Dye with his draw off the tee, fade to the green and vice versa.  A good way to test a golfers complete game but still playable to the average player who just hits straight or only one way.

[Jason Topp]

welcome Scott

i would think at least 95% of all golfers don't have the skill to do it

I have always maintained this (and I am in the 95% category more often than not).

How many golfers can actually consistently hit a draw, fade, controlled shot on demand more than 50% or 70% of the time?  How many golfers are really be able to consistently place a ball on a specific side of the fairway, within even 20 yards of exactly where we are targeting on a drive, and do this 50% or more of the time?  Even with the shorter irons, most of us are less than accurate over a ten shot span.    Maybe a few small percent of golfers can hit an accurate draw 2 or 3 times out of ten times that they try, but otherwise most of us have less than accurate shots, at least for what we desire to hit.    

Sure, maybe we attempt to hit a fade off the tee and land a ball 250 yards away on the right side of the fairway, but I'll bet if you are honest with yourself, this type of designed or intended shot is successful less than 10 or 20 percent of the time.   That is not to say that the 'unintended' shot is necessarily bad, (maybe while intending to hit a fade to the right side fo the fairway to line up your second shot, you just hit the ball straight down the middle and still have a good second shot with a less desirable although clear second shot).

Without a doubt the smart play is to hit the shot you can rely on and compensate with aim.  I think the thread though asks whether architecture nuts attempt to turn the ball even if it is the stupid shot from a scoring perspective.  The answer is yes. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

The best architecture does not dictate a shot but provides advantages for hitting a certain shot.  As a player you weigh the advantages against the risks and make your decision.  Good architecture makes that decision a tough one.

For me if a tee shot calls for a left to right shot (I normally hook) my decisions vary.  It depends on many factors, the biggest being whether I care about my score whether I will get a chance to try the shot again and whether I have any hope of hitting a fade that day.

Jason,

This answer fits my architectural philosophy perfectly and is very apt.  Its important NOT to dictate one option (at least not very often) but to provide a subtle advantage for a draw, fade, high, low, running, accurate, long, etc.  If these are balanced over the round, any type of player can have the advantage on at least a few holes.  Over the year, a player with "all the shots" would statistically be slightly more likely to win more matches than a one trick pony.  Of course, there is no way to ever measure that, but that's the theory.

However, even at the pro tour level, many many very good players rely on one shot pattern, and at the club level or muni level that has to be even more prevalent, so suggest, don't demand.  Good philosophy in my book.

[Mike Benham]

Of course we do, because if we can easily define the faults with any golf course, regardless of the architect, we are also the world's best 15 handicappers, able to control our ball flight, work the ball both ways on demand, boom 300 yard drives, nip that little 50 yard half wedge so that it bounces once and stops.

[Rich Brittingham]

Depends how much $$$ is on the line   

[Steve Kline]

The best architecture does not dictate a shot but provides advantages for hitting a certain shot.  As a player you weigh the advantages against the risks and make your decision.  Good architecture makes that decision a tough one.

For me if a tee shot calls for a left to right shot (I normally hook) my decisions vary.  It depends on many factors, the biggest being whether I care about my score whether I will get a chance to try the shot again and whether I have any hope of hitting a fade that day.

Jason,

This answer fits my architectural philosophy perfectly and is very apt.  Its important NOT to dictate one option (at least not very often) but to provide a subtle advantage for a draw, fade, high, low, running, accurate, long, etc.  If these are balanced over the round, any type of player can have the advantage on at least a few holes.  Over the year, a player with "all the shots" would statistically be slightly more likely to win more matches than a one trick pony.  Of course, there is no way to ever measure that, but that's the theory.

However, even at the pro tour level, many many very good players rely on one shot pattern, and at the club level or muni level that has to be even more prevalent, so suggest, don't demand.  Good philosophy in my book.

I agree with this and with John Burzynski said. That is why width and proper angles is so important. Most golfers can't control the type of shot they hit reliably and aren't very good. So, the good player who can hit all the shots has an advantage but the poor player can still get around with easy bogeys because there is width but the playing angles prevent par most of the time.

One other thing - I agree with Jeff that many Tour pros stick with their stock shot. This has always bewildered me. I'm a good golfer (+3) but by no means a Tour player. I never hit a shot without trying to draw it or fade it a little. If it's really crunch time and I need to hit the fairway I'll probably go with a fade, but only if the hole allows it easily. Usually, I play whatever shot my eye says to hit - whether it is the proper shot according to the architecture or not. So, if a guy like me does that it's just hard me to understand why the pros don't. I guess they have that one shot so grooved in it doesn't matter.

[Ken Moum]

So, if a guy like me does that it's just hard me to understand why the pros don't. I guess they have that one shot so grooved in it doesn't matter.

That might be why they're on tour and you're not. 

Ignore that if you like, it was for my amusement.

I think your conclusion is right. Imagine how easy the game would be if every ball did exactly the same thing.

Look at the success "Leaky" had on tour hitting nothing but a big cut. And there's Billy Casper and Lanny Wadkins who hooked pretty much every shot.

(An aside -- I watched a clinic once with Lanny, D. Graham, Fuzzy and H. Irwin where the other three exhorted Wadkins to hit a fade. He pulled out a mid-iron and hit it dead straight. When it landed it hopped about a foot to the right, and he turned to the crowd and deadlpanned, "Ground fade.")

But they're playing for their lives, and most of us play for the heck of it.

Ken

[Jeff_Brauer]

When I co-designed a few courses with Larry Nelson we had to give some presentations and got a pretty good schtick going.  I would describe how the features might set up a shot and ask him how he would play it.  Of course, no matter what I said, his answer was "a draw."  Then I would ask if he saw any other options.  He would say "a hook."

One time I gave a presentation with Bruce Litzke - same schtick, but with "fade' and "huge fade" replacing. Once, he claimed he would play a "Big Honkin' Fade."

Of course, the upside of all of this is that we might really overstate the value of strategy. I ask tour pros and good players all the time about stuff like that.  A small percentage of them look at strategy like the golden age players might have. 

I question just how much Golden Age players bought into the strategy as written by the GA gca's.  Other than Hogan saying he might aim for the rough, I can't recall too many players of that caliber really talking about playing the angles. However, if one of the "expert researchers" here can find some substantive quotes to the effect, I wouldn't mind seeing them.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()