"Shot Value"

[Mike Hendren]

This term gets thrown around quite a bit.  Define it.

Regards,

Mike

[Michael Moore]

Matt Ward did a good job of defining it on this here thread

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1046734907&start=14

[TEPaul]

MikeH:

The definition of "shot value" found within Cornish & Whitten is probably as good as any;

"Shot values is an important yet somewhat mysterious term. Golf architects Ken Killian and Dick Nugent have described it well as "a reflection of what the hole demands of the golfer and the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots"".

[Mitch Hantman]

Golf Digest defines Shot Values as:  How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?  

[ChipOat]

Oh boy.  Can't stay employed and answer this one.

Need to see what Matt Ward says but, until then, here goes.

Degree of difficulty + risk/reward + "fair" (my definition) + strategic alternatives + ...... oh my.

About a zillion holes to use as examples (good and bad):

TOC #17 + a couple others
NGLA #7 + a bunch others
Merion, Pine Valley, Pebble............

The list goes forever.

What a great thread - need a Tom Paul-length post to do justice.  Have to keep the warden busy for a couple hours this weekend.

[Mike Hendren]

I'm surprised this thread didn't elicit at least a few more posts.  Either the alternative definitions are comprehensive, or "shot value" is an esoteric term that is merely name dropped.  I don't "get it."

Regards,

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Mike:

I didn't respond here because I just use the Golf Digest defintion, given by Mitch here.  That sums it up pretty well and I just have nothing to add...

TH

[Mike Hendren]

Yes, Tom.  I would expect you to espouse the party line.

Regards,

Mike

[THuckaby2]

Well, it's the party line, but it's also a good definition!  GD gives us more detail on this defintion as well, "fleshing" it out, as it were.  Heck it's just a golf term, not a rule or anything, so people can define it however they want.  GD's is just the best I've seen... not that I've really read any others!

I am pretty damn loyal though, aren't I?  

TH

[ChipOat]

Busy over the weekend - sorry I dropped the ball.  Will try to give this one justice somehow after meetings; deserves a better response; specific examples and philosophical BIASES should promote lively dialogue.

[Jeff_McDowell]

Mike,

I think you're right on with your idea of an esoteric idea that is name dropped. I've had just as much luck trying to discuss the concept of shot value as I've had explaining non-Euclidian geometry to my three year old.

[TEPaul]

Fellows:

Just look at this definition of "shot value" again;

"a reflection of what the hole demands of the golfer and the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots".  

The concept of shot value and understanding what it means doesn't have to be akin to Euclidean geometry because it isn't. The term is a little mysterious just because either no one seems to have really defined it intricately or much more likely not many are aware of the simple and good definition of it (the one above), not because it's immensely difficult to define.

Here's a good example;

Try hitting a ball to the far back left pin position of Pine Valley's #3 green and holding it near that pin in that small area. That shot has a very high shot value because the relative reward of pulling it off successfully is high compared to putting the ball elsewhere on the green, for instance. And the relative punishment of not pulling the shot off and missing that green and small greenspace completely is also great.

Now imagine hitting a ball onto an enormous 10,000 sf green that's flat and has very little around it to penalize the golfer and his next stroke. That shot has a low shot value. With those two examples as fairly good parameters anything in between can be fairly easily categorized for "shot value".

Again, shot value is not rocket science, it just happens to be a term that no one has been particularly aware of its quite simple definition, like the one in parentheses above.
 
 

[Rick Shefchik]

I define shot value as the level of satisfaction I derive from hitting the proper shot on a given hole.

[ChipOat]

Matt Ward's definition is excellent for describing a COURSE's overall shot values.  But a particular HOLE's shot values are more specific (and subjective) IMO and a particular SHOT's "shot value" is really specific and, mostly, really subjective.

As an aside, I prefer to leave "beauty" and/or "scenery" out of my personal evaluation of shot values and try to focus on the architecture "in a vaccum", so to speak.

Example #1:  Is the shot just plain long and hard to an "appropriate" landing area or green complex?

CPC #16
PVGC #15 - 2nd and 3rd shots
Merion #18 - drive and approach
Pebble #8 - 2nd shot

Example #2:  Is there a clear strategic advantage to being on the right/wrong side after the shot is played WITHOUT a Stupid Tree being involved?

Pebble #18 - drive & 2nd shot
Pebble #8 - drive
Merion #2 - drive & 2nd shot

There's a start - will update later.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Maybe I'm blind but I can't seem to see Matt Ward's excellent definition of a COURSE'S shot values.

[Michael Moore]

Tom -

I know you'll never get used to those new-fangled "hyperlinks", so here you go -

"the wherewithal of a course to demand the fullest array of expertise with the greatest number of clubs in your bag. I would say shot values call upon the golfer to blend power, accuracy and finesse and the wherewithal to work the ball as necessary (high and low, left and right) on command when called upon for that particular situation."

Wherewithal?? Talk about anthropomorphization!!

[JakaB]

The way I read TEP with all his smack about hitting to a big green having little value...I must conclude that a properly located drive on a tight fairway which may even be optionless has more value than a properly placed drive on an option full hole of great width....interesting if what he is saying is that greater options may provide lesser value..of shot that is.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I think Killian and Nugent's definition pretty much says it all and was well explained in TEPaul's posts. The golf digest explanation seems to have more to do with balance than values, as does Matt's, and encompasses more than the value of a single shot.
 
On one specific occasion I was before a zoning board with a road plan for a small subdivision. The code called for "Traffic Bound Gravel" to be used and my representative asked for a definition and clarification of the term. The board asked their engineer who could not find one anywhere. Finally my engineer, who had been sitting there smiling the whole time, chimed in. He said: " traffic bound gravel is gravel bound by traffic", end of quote, definition accepted by everyone.  

Kind of like "Shot Values", the value of a shot.
Sometimes the simplest of answers is all that is needed to explain an idea or define a term.
 

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

You make a very interesting point there about a fairway that may be narrow and penal being of higher actual "shot value" than one that may be far wider and more multi-optional with perhaps hazard features sprinkled around inside it.

But if it's true that higher shot value necessarily translates into better quality architecture and more interesting and enjoyable architecture then the real question probably becomes--for whom?

Certainly a golf course like a Pine Valley has higher shot values for a very good player than say an Aronimink. But where does that leave the less than very good player?

In this context of "shot value" or high shot value the interesting quotation of Donald Ross may be applicable;

"It's fairly easy to build a very difficult course and it's fairly easy to build a very easy course but it isn't easy to build a course that accomodates everyone well."

The term "shot value" (high shot value) may be somewhat synonymous with quality architecture in some sense and for some uses but not necessarily so!

Where definitions like "shot value" start to fall apart is when golfers of differing levels begin to feel they have some right or some capability of accomplishing somewhat the same things. That seems to be happening more and more these days.

[JakaB]

What a great concept that the value of shot differs with the abilities of given golfers...or that the degree of penality on poor performance may play a part in the equation.   The cost of extreme width on shot value when weighed against its value as a crutch for the less talented golfer creates an interesting balance where it must be questioned if width really is a strategic option or just a coupon for a strategic illlusion.

[TEPaul]

"The cost of extreme width on shot value when weighed against its value as a crutch for the less talented golfer creates an interesting balance where it must be questioned if width really is a strategic option or just a coupon for a strategic illlusion."

JakaB:

An interesting balance indeed! As necessary as recognizing that all golfers don't exactly have the same talent and the same skill. What a revolutionary concept that is, right? Some may choose to call that a 'crutch' while other architects and golfers may call it "strategic options".

Ever hear of the old fashioned analogy in strategic golf of the "tortoise and hare"? I guess that must have been some cute old architectural animalistic anthropomorphic illusion, huh?

[Jeff_McDowell]

Tom,

Your example of a high shot value and low shot value, although obvious to you, further confuses the issue by being just as vague as the definition of shot value.

It seems to me that trying to define shot value is an attempt to quantify a feeling. An attempt to quantify something you should feel in your bones.