At what point do Options become Noise?

[Mike Benham]

After all of that typing, I realize now that you actually made my point.  They're one in the same. 

So who made who's point?

Perhaps the lure of Ballyneal diminishes this issue, but what is the goal of the specific round that is being played?  If it is a casual round, where the scorecard doesn't matter, then a golfer of any ability can try shots that they may not be proficient at.

But it it is a competitive round, even a $ 5 nassau, I doubt that many golfers will attempt a shot that they are not comfortable with.

And as someone noted, let's not confuse options with execution ...

[Niall C]

Niall,

One reason a gently angled fw, perhaps with a cape hole type hazard is so good is that it automatically allows for all tee shot distances.  Fairways that gradually diminish in width sort of provide the same continous degrees of options from long/short perspective. Staggered bunkers down the fw achieve some different things for different players.

All can create options without building four or five fw per hole!

And, I agree that ground slope is a great hazard.  Going back to the one design posted here, it appears all the hazards are of the same type and most of the designed LZ's are of the same width and angle.  How much better would it be if one of those ridges was sand, another a clump of trees, and another LZ (perhaps the shortest route) comprised of a more rolling fw than the perimeter options?

Jeff

Very well articulated, if I may say ! Philip Young posted in another thread a link to a Tillinghast newsletter which had Tillys take on angled fairways and bunkering, I think Tilly referred to them as Oblique angles if I remember correctly. Like your cape hole type, they engage every class of golfer and make them think and go for a specific shot. Consequently they get more enjoyment and usually play better because their brain is being engaged.

Quite agree also that you don't need huge fairways to create options and interest. Indeed I would argue the opposite that more often wide open fairways create less interest.

Niall

[BCrosby]

Any thread that mentions John Boyd is a very good thread indeed. Never thought I would see the day...

Interesting stuff above. A quibble. "Noise" is the wrong word. It implies an absence of information. Options on a good golf hole are thick with information. Plenty of data is available. There's usually not much mystery about what your choices are. Good holes don't mask the choices, they make picking the best one hard.

Bob

[ChipRoyce]

Great question.

I think the issue of noise is in the eye of the beholderr. I mean this figuratively and literally - what about the hole fits your eye and your golfing abilities (shot shape, distance,etc...).

For example, I brought up the alternate fairway on the 15th at Seminole in a discussion recently after having played. To me, it wasn't noise and seemed like my desired way to play the hole and still make birdie / par. However, a few of the pundits here, disagreed heartily, either due to their knowledge of the course and/or golfing abilities and suggested that that fairway was only of value to the short hitter / ladies tee. If you look at a routing map / aerial, however, it seems like a great heroic shot that begs to be played by some.

[Ben Sims]

BCrosby,

Quibble away friend!  I will say that I disagree with your assertion that great golf holes show you all the options.  Mr. Doak--in my experiences on his courses and as mentioned above--has virtually made the "hiding large amounts of fairway" thing his signature.  There have been many times I've hit a shot that was offline, that ended up being a great play on Renaissance courses.  So I don't completely agree that good golf holes show you everything and make the choice hard.  Well, maybe after you play the hole a few times it does. So I see your point.

Mike,

Fair enough.  I understand that we're comparing peaches to peanuts, but they end up at the same result.  Either the player doesn't see the option and therefore isn't affected by the lack of situational awareness; or they can't execute a particular option and they have to forget about the shot they can't make.  I think either way, the options that an architect puts into the ground shouldn't be considered noise.  But rather, a crutch for those with the ability to hit the shots, and something to ignore for those that can't.

[Tom Huckaby]

Ben:

I think you have it backwards.

Overabundant options - or let's call it hyper-focus on them - seem to me to be more the crutch of those who CAN'T hit the shots.  That is, they fixate on the mental game because anyone can at least try to do that... and it requires no ability to actually get the ball where you want it to go to think about these things.  Oh, sometimes a rare outlier high capper comes up who really does think his way around to the great benefit of his game... but for the most part, high cappers have options forced upon them by the results of their shots, as much as they want to think otherwise.

It's the better player for whom options are indeed either noise, or otherwise meaningless... as I said, when one can hit 330+ drives and 200 yard 7irons that stop and back up, who needs options other than take the shortest route and aim for the stick?

The example Eric posted shows this... the great player sees nothing but line B... or maybe not even that!  There's really nothing there that makes him want to do anything but bomb away, straight at the hole, get a wedge in his hand and stiff that.  No angle matters at all.  It's the lesser player (if he is hyper-focused on options) who sees A-F, settles on one, then fails to execute and starts all over.  The options exist and he tries to utilize them, but in the end it doesn't matter because the plan isn't followed!  So he starts over again on the next shot... In the end someone earlier had it right - it might all be so much noise that most say what the hell and just hit is straight anyway.

That's an extreme example for sure, but it is illustrative.

In the end, yes it is nice for golf holes to present options - their existence make the game more fun than golf holes on which there are none (or it's all crystal clear).  Figuring out a puzzle (as John Kirk says) is great fun indeed.

But hyper-focus on them seems to me to be all too much beard pulling.

I loved Ballyneal too, btw.

 

[Ben Sims]

I've been Hucked!!

Kidding.  But again, I see your point.  I would argue that the greatest "rubik's cuber" of this golf generation is likely it's most skilled ball striker.  All arguments go out the door when referring to Mr. Eldrick Woods however.  But in reality, I think a scratcher is MORE likely to look at how he can successfully ignore all options and go for the high long one and the high stopping one. 

But remember, the high capper that successfully navigates based on the process of eliminating the options he can't take is not hyper focused to a negative point.  Watching some of my playing partners at Ballyneal reemphasized this for me.  Or rather, there are many ways to skin a cat. 

I do agree that high caps have their options chosen for them by the unpredictability of their golf swing around 50% of the time.  But they do in fact hit it where they want some of the time too.  As with most things in this crazy game, it works both ways.  But I always want options, 2 is good, 5 is great.  But don't give me one of those Lido holes with 15 options.  That is beard pulling of the highest order.

[Kyle Harris]

In a short answer - yes.

The problem with assessing options is the myopic view the very assessment tends to create. As it stands in the game, holes do not stand in an individual vacuum, but instead are a part of a continuum of shots and options that create a course and a round.

I tried explaining this point to Ryan Farrow about the 6th hole at Galen Hall. It's a nondescript, unbunkered, dogleg left Par 4.5 of around 480 yards. We were playing the hole and he asked what options were present for the golfer. I tried to explain that the hole, while simple to the eyes, presented a challenge to the tournament golfer as 4 was just out of reach, and 5 was a little too easily in grasp.

Taken alone, the hole has really no options, but in the context of the golf course, the quest for 4 at the risk of 6+ or the decision to settle for 5 at the risk of losing a shot to the rest of the field forces the golfer to make strategic decisions based on what has happened previous and what the golfer can anticipate next.