John Kirk's Links Mag Article on a Familiar Subject.

[JMEvensky]

So, this is probably not the thread to ask that kind of philosohpical question of to what level golfer should a target be attainable by reasonable golf.  However, when I start such philosophy threads, they don't get as much traction as applying those questions to existing courses.....

I don't think I understand "reasonable golf".Do you mean reasonably talented?

Granted,an overly general question,but do you purposely design to be unreasonable to some percentage of players?And,if so,are you more likely to disregard the 10% at the top or bottom?

[Sean_A]

Jim,

I don't think risk/frustration is more than a catchy term. In reality, it is a matter of degrees.  But am I going to bust my butt trying to carry a fw bunker if the result is going to be likely to be kicked into the rough or will I just play to the middle of the fw if all the lies are rumpled and I will have less chance of a bad result?

IMHO, hard courses become less fun if there is no reward.

As to fair, I will admit to sort of mixing and matching experiences on other Doak courses, while never seen Ballyneal other than photos here.  At PD and the Rawls there are some greens, not all, where a swale or hump in the middle of the green is such that I hit a mid iron in, in windy conditions, and the green contours took that shot off the green to a spot way down in a hollow several yards from the green.  I have to admit I said, "WTF is this all about?"  I suspect most golfers would prefer a well struck shot hit on the green stay on the green. 

More than most golfers, I can admit that there are courses I am just not good enough to play regularly and admit that there should be some courses built for razor sharp accurate shots or even creative shots as we discussed above.  (especially for creative shots) 

So, this is probably not the thread to ask that kind of philosohpical question of to what level golfer should a target be attainable by reasonable golf.  However, when I start such philosophy threads, they don't get as much traction as applying those questions to existing courses.....

Jeff

I know what you are saying, but a bump shunting balls away will more often than not be because the golfer didn't have the best line of approach to avoid the bump.  Fair enough, it may take a few goes to figure this out where if there is a pile of sand out there one can usually easily see the strategy of how to approach around the bunker.  Its really not all that different except with bumps the archie can be a bit more bold - its a more elastic hazard which can have more applications than a bunker - normally.

Looking at it another way, what about false fronts?  Guys hit greens and watch balls float down the slope.  Is this fair, right, good?  The kicker with false fronts is that usually there is no way around them.  The golfer has to hit over or up them.  Now, a better design for a false front is when the player gets in a position where he has this choice even though he may not like the options.  

As with all these things - keeping a balance is the key.  I daresay this lack of balance is what puts people in two minds about Pennard.  It is a relentless mound n' hollow course in which shots just fall away seemingly with no rhyme or reason.  I know I much prefer the subtlety of the Pennard approach to golf, but a great many do not.

Ciao

[Anthony Fowler]

Jeff, I have to side with Sean and others on this one.  If a player only wants to think about landing his approach as close as possible to the target, he/she might as well be on the driving range.  While these swales and humps in the middle of greens might make courses more challenging, they also make them more exciting and interesting to play.  It's also okay (if not a good thing) in my mind if it takes several (even many) rounds to figure out how to best play a particular shot.

I don't think we want to go overboard with this philosophy, driving higher handicappers away from the game.  However, we already have plenty of boring courses and we could use a few more of these exciting holes, even if they are perplexing the first few times around.  I haven't played the Rawls course and I don't know of the particular greens that you're thinking about, but I'd be willing to bet that your shots that were deflected, although well hit, were not the ideal way to play the approach.  Isn't it better that you'd have to think a lot more about your shot choice if you played the hole again?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree that Doak attempts a lot of interesting shots with contours and I like that.  That said, I think that even when playing "non-standard shots" which I like, don't most golfers think about getting as close to the pin as possible on most shots, however they get there?  I don't mind the occaisional green where the best play is twenty yards from the pin, but the driving range is only there to perfect skills for the real rounds!  And I sure don't mind a hole that takes a while to figure out.  Again, the only question I would have is how many times to build a green where it is nearly impossible to attain results from ANY kind of shot and I have the impression that Doak builds a few greens like that.

I think we both agree that its not wrong, but can be simply too much  if overdone.  And, the definition of overdone can vary from course to course. In the case of the Rawls course, yeah, its basically for college competitions.  And Ballyneal is for a special group of golfers, so I am not critiquing.

However, some golfers with more talent than you and I probably would complain about any one shot with no way to get good results or gain advantage and I do understand that point of view, even while not embracing it completely.

But still a question of philosophy, and fair game to discuss here!

[Bill Gayne]

We all have two eyes, a critical eye and an appreciative eye, for evaluating and enjoying golf courses. What makes John's writing, posting, and comments interesting is that it reflects the use of both eyes in an objective way.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Hey Jeff.

Funny. Your last post is the only entry at this thread I've read thus far... and, I had to respond!

I don't know where to start, really... but, the jist of your post seems to be that there's really no way to cut holes in the ground and play golf the way people did hundreds of years ago, anymore. Is this correct? In other words, what ever happened to the idea of hitting the ball, finding it, hitting it again... then, the golfer using the fewest number of strokes wins?

I hope you get my "drift"...  do we really need to be designing and building stuff to satisfy expectations of a "talented golfer" who thinks he hit a good shot?

I presume the answer is an astounding "yes" 

[Tom_Doak]

Actually, the 7th hole at Ballyneal was going to be a dogleg right, but then we decided to lengthen #8 and move the green down into its present location, and those were both clearly the correct choices, which outweighs the left/right balance to me every time.

The 12th and 14th were already set and there was no reasonable alternative to make either of them go the other way.  But on #12 you are rewarded for hugging the inside of the dogleg off the tee, while on #7 and #14 I prefer to play to the outside of the fairway and then play back into the bank of the green on the approach.

It's not like there are no dogleg-right holes on the golf course ... #4 goes to the right, as does #17.  If anything, my tendency is to have more holes going to the right than to the left, but not at Ballyneal ... the holes we found just didn't go that way.  I think it's a shame that people look to stuff like that on a course where so many of the individual holes are both interesting and unusual in character.

[Sean Leary]

Actually, the 7th hole at Ballyneal was going to be a dogleg right, but then we decided to lengthen #8 and move the green down into its present location, and those were both clearly the correct choices, which outweighs the left/right balance to me every time.

The 12th and 14th were already set and there was no reasonable alternative to make either of them go the other way.  But on #12 you are rewarded for hugging the inside of the dogleg off the tee, while on #7 and #14 I prefer to play to the outside of the fairway and then play back into the bank of the green on the approach.

It's not like there are no dogleg-right holes on the golf course ... #4 goes to the right, as does #17.  If anything, my tendency is to have more holes going to the right than to the left, but not at Ballyneal ... the holes we found just didn't go that way.  I think it's a shame that people look to stuff like that on a course where so many of the individual holes are both interesting and unusual in character.

Prairie Dunes is very similar. Many more right to left holes than left to right. And its pretty good in its own right.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

Certainly the whole history of golf design has been refinement of the "use the ground as it is" to modify the ground as necessary, hasn't it?  I suspect the first cry of "unfair!" came no later the the second golf match in history and its been a slow march since then to make it as "fair" as possible.  And, its been a long, slow march to building to the satisfaction of the better golfer, yes.  That is not my opinion, that s history, no?

So, if a few holes go back the direction of more luck and less reward for skill, yeah, that is a major paradigm shift in design.  I don't question that so much as much as whether or not embracing that paradigm shift is as enthusiastic "out there" in the other world we call reality!  Or, is this reality and the other world a fantasy?

I sure as heck don't know! 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean L:  How about Ballybunion?

Dogleg left:  1, 6, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18
Straightaway:  2, 4, 5, 7, 9
Dogleg right:  11

[John Kirk]

If anything, my tendency is to have more holes going to the right than to the left, but not at Ballyneal ... the holes we found just didn't go that way.  I think it's a shame that people look to stuff like that on a course where so many of the individual holes are both interesting and unusual in character.

If you remember, the genesis of the comment about having no short holes turning right came from a Sand Hills vs. Ballyneal debate several years ago.  A couple of the guys favored the back-to-back short 7th and 8th holes at Sand Hills.  Not only do Sand Hills #7 and #8 play in opposite directions, but #7 turns left and #8 turns right a bit.

Ballyneal has five short par 4s, with four (#1, #7, #12, #14) turning left and #9 playing straight.  Tom correctly points out that #7 and #12 have dramatically different playing characteristics, with #7 favoring a draw and #12 a (very) powerful fade for the player attempting to reach the green.

As a longtime member who believes Ballyneal is as fine a course as I have played, I felt some obligation to temper my enthusiasm by offering a nominal critique of the design.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I'm not offended by the comment, I just think an even "balance" of doglegs and other factors is not so important when a course has a variety of really good holes to its credit. 

It is just one of those "gotchas" used by people who could never lay out a golf course, to one-up a good routing.  There are several others of those [two par-3's have the same distance!  the par-3's don't play in every different compass direction!  etc.] which are frequently mentioned, in spite of the fact that undeniably great courses occasionally show these "flaws".  My argument is that a paint-by-numbers routing would almost never be the best possible solution to an undulating piece of ground, so the only time where this is relevant is a fairly flat site where nothing prevents you from laying out the course to provide more balance.

Do you really think that Ballyneal favors the player with a fade or a draw, over an opponent who hits it the other way?

[Kyle Henderson]

As a longtime member who believes Ballyneal is as fine a course as I have played, I felt some obligation to temper my enthusiasm by offering a nominal critique of the design.

I didn't realize the club has existed long enough to have "longtime members." 

But I agree with your assessment of the course. Golf gets no better.

[Jim Nugent]

Jeff,

Certainly the whole history of golf design has been refinement of the "use the ground as it is" to modify the ground as necessary, hasn't it? 

If so, it's interesting that a number of courses considered among the world's best have little of that refinement.  TOC.  Ballybunion, Sand Hills, maybe RCD?   

Also interesting that the only modern architects to break into those ranks have gone back to less refinement.  So I wonder if more modification really is the history of golf design.  Seems like lately the opposite has been true.   

[Sean_A]

John:

I'm not offended by the comment, I just think an even "balance" of doglegs and other factors is not so important when a course has a variety of really good holes to its credit. 

It is just one of those "gotchas" used by people who could never lay out a golf course, to one-up a good routing.  There are several others of those [two par-3's have the same distance!  the par-3's don't play in every different compass direction!  etc.] which are frequently mentioned, in spite of the fact that undeniably great courses occasionally show these "flaws".  My argument is that a paint-by-numbers routing would almost never be the best possible solution to an undulating piece of ground, so the only time where this is relevant is a fairly flat site where nothing prevents you from laying out the course to provide more balance.

Do you really think that Ballyneal favors the player with a fade or a draw, over an opponent who hits it the other way?

Tom

I don't know about even balance of leggers right and left, but I think if there is a prevailing wind which can get strong the concept should be given a bit of weight.  Otherwise you by happenstance end up with a load of right to left holes with the wind off the left etc etc.  Not an ideal combo to face a load of times and if it can be avoided I think it is worth thinking about.   

Ciao

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I agree with you about trying to build holes with the prevailing wind in mind, where there is one.  Ballyneal has a couple of them which are pretty much polar opposites, but 17 and 18 are both long 4's which dogleg in opposite directions, so that the wind is usually helping one of them and hurting the other.  Still, if 17 had been a much better hole going the other way, I would not have thought twice about laying it out similarly to the 18th.

[John Kirk]

I don't believe the course favors one type of ball striker.  Even though #12 theroetically favors a gigantic fade, I try to hit my mortal-size draw at the ridgeline, attempting to keep the ball on the high side. If I'm not trying to reach #7 downwind with a big draw, I just hit a low straight one out to the right side and play into the hill, similar to Tom's strategy.  In fact, I remember playing #7 with Tom a couple years ago, and seeing him knock a 1- or 2-iron out there 220 or 230 yards and being impressed he could hit such a small club so far.

#10 is sort of a fade hole.  #14 is a bunny driver hole.  #18 is the coolest thing ever.  Ever.

They always say that Augusta National favors a draw, but I'm not sure that many courses truly favor one shape over another, unless they are narrow tree-lined affairs.  Perhaps an interesting exercise would be to try and identify such a course, and the characteristics that promote a shot shape.  Olympic has some big side slopes (#4 and #5, is that right?) that strongly encourage shots into the slope, for instance.

[Tom_Doak]

John:

I think there are a lot of golf holes where everything visually suggests a fade or a draw off the tee or on the approach shot.  It's on tee shots that I can usually get a sense of what the architect's golf game is like.  Even on a fairly straightaway hole, you can see that the bunkers favor a fade or a draw.

Then again, people who hit the ball the opposite way can find a way to make things fit.  For example, I would never think of hitting a high ball to the left on #12 at Ballyneal ... even when I have a fade working, I would just try to hug the left edge of the fairway as it goes past those first bunkers.

[Scott Szabo]

I still find it fascinating that people attempt to go over the bunker complex on left side of #12 and have the ability to do so.  The ability to hit the long ball can certainly set golfers apart.

Tom, did you design the hole with that thinking in mind or did the land simply allow for that option?

[Jerry Kluger]

Sometimes the terms "fade" and "draw" are merged into the terms "hook" and "slice". #7 at Ballyneal would certainly favor a hooker over a slicer but I don't believe that there is much, if any, advantage to the person who draws the ball as compared to one who fades it.

We are also being very loose with the term "dogleg" as opposed to a bend of say 10 or 15 degrees.  To me, a dogleg means a significant difference in the following shots if one hits a tee shot toward the outside of the dogleg - this is not very common today.

[John Kirk]

John:

Then again, people who hit the ball the opposite way can find a way to make things fit.  For example, I would never think of hitting a high ball to the left on #12 at Ballyneal ... even when I have a fade working, I would just try to hug the left edge of the fairway as it goes past those first bunkers.

I try to play the game according to my strengths.  Like most players, I attempt the shot which I believe gives the largest margin of error, and yields the lowest average score.  On #12, I aim left-center, along the ridgeline, and attempt to move the ball a little left (a couple/few yards) with my driver.  I take an easy swing, as I am not trying to kill it.  My most common mistake is a slight pull, in which case I am still OK, barely left of the bunkers, from which par is usually difficult.  If I push or slice, the ball ends up below, and I take my chances with the uphill approach.  Pull hook ends up in the bunker.

I want a gap wedge or pitching wedge into that green.  Birdie is easiest when the pin is either front right or back left.  The other pins are quite tough to get close to.

[Tom_Doak]

I still find it fascinating that people attempt to go over the bunker complex on left side of #12 and have the ability to do so.  The ability to hit the long ball can certainly set golfers apart.

Tom, did you design the hole with that thinking in mind or did the land simply allow for that option?

Scott:

We did design the 12th thinking that some people would try to go left over the top of the little dune ... that's why there are bunkers left of the fairway over on that side, so those people will have some chance of finding their drive if they pull it left of where they intended.  However, I always thought of the play to the left as a sucker play for 99% of golfers ... I gave it to them, but only a few are really good enough to pull it off.