News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Shot values
« on: June 02, 2010, 09:30:27 AM »
I see this term a lot when it comes to evaluating courses.

What are they?

Can there be "good shot values" and "bad shot values"? Or are they inherently good and it's more a case of "shot values present" vs "shot values absent"?

It's an omnipresent term, but I am not sure I have ever seen someone articulate exactly what they are and how to appraise them.

Examples from known courses are encouraged if that helps the explanation process.

Anthony Gray

Re: Shot values
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2010, 09:54:36 AM »


  No absolutes and hard to define. But.....I would say options. Giving the player high/low option. Options as to angle of attack-bring the ball in from the left or the right. Club selection also- a low 8-iron or a high wedge. Penality-where is the best miss and what is the risk/reward for the brave shot.

  Redans are examples. Playing them low and off the bank or high and taking more of a direct line to the pin bringing the bunker into play.

  No 5 at Pac Dunes has great shot values as well as No 6..........OPTIONS with a multiple outcomes.

  Anthony

 

TEPaul

Re: Shot values
« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2010, 10:01:44 AM »
This is an explanation of "Shot Values" from Cornish and Whitten's book "The Architects of Golf" I have found to be pretty serviceable:


"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."

Brent Hutto

Re: Shot values
« Reply #3 on: June 02, 2010, 10:04:44 AM »
I would use "value" in the same of what we would colloquially call "bang for the buck" or perhaps "value for money" in UK-speak.

Say you are in the fairway 144 yards from a hole cut in the back-left quadrant of a green. Bit more than a one-club breeze, hurting and from the right. Well that's a "shot", OK?

If the hole is question is on level ground, the green is dead flat and 12,000 square feet and the putting surface is damp enough that the ball sticks within a few feet of its landing spot there's not a lot in it. Pick the appropriate club for "144 into the wind", aim a little to the right and try to make a good swing.

Now make it slightly uphill, the green is firm, slight rise on the left edge of the green, slight fall to the right-front overall, surround it with bunker (both in play and flashed behind the green) and just for kicks have the sun sparkling off the ocean as a backdrop.



Which offers more "value" for your one shot? I'd argue that my first example is sort of the least "shot value" while the second is a better "shot value" altogether. But it's still one shot. If you judge the situation correctly and make a good swing you'll end up with a 10-foot putt for birdie either way, right?

That's the basic idea.

TEPaul

Re: Shot values
« Reply #4 on: June 02, 2010, 10:24:00 AM »
I've never heard the term used in the context of good shot value or bad shot value; it's more often used as high shot value or low shot value. That would seem to square well with the aforementioned explanation of the relative degree of reward or punishement meted out for good and bad shots.

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #5 on: June 02, 2010, 10:25:38 AM »
This is an explanation of "Shot Values" from Cornish and Whitten's book "The Architects of Golf" I have found to be pretty serviceable:


"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."

Tom,

I agree with that explanation.  I'd also add that to me 'shot values' means giving somewhat equal 'value' during a round as it relates to testing a players putting, length, accuracy, and so on.  There 'should' be no one aspect of a shot tested much more than another. In a perfect world there'd be no significant emphasis placed on one specific area of the game.

 I think it's a comprehensive balancing act.


Davis Wildman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2010, 10:33:37 AM »
So, what specific variables, design components or general characteristics make up 'shot value'...is it a variable that can be 'managed'?  I seem to recall discussion with clients in regards to greens that have lost pin locations, due to green creep and increased slope from years of top-dressing and bunker splash.  If a green loses pin location/pinable area, does it decrease a hole's shot value?

Brent Hutto

Re: Shot values
« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2010, 10:41:59 AM »
Davis,

Wouldn't that depend on what hole locations remain?

If a green with a false front, offering some of the most interesting pin placements on the green, were to be speeded up past the point where you have to move the hole back into the green and lose all the advantage of the false front that would seem to be a direct loss of "shot values".

On the other hand if you have some interestingly contoured quadrants of a big old putting green and decide to let a flatter portion of the green become fringe, fairway or rough that's not costing much at all as it only eliminates some boring flat-and-easy hole locations.

Brent Hutto

Re: Shot values
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2010, 10:51:54 AM »
I think it's a term often used out of laziness to describe something that could and should be described with greater specificity.  

Sort of like the word "facility"...

Good point. The word "experience", also.

I have also observed that "shot values" is occasionally used as shorthand for "difficulty".

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2010, 10:55:14 AM »
It's a made up term. Tom Paul supplying the definition is helpful to see through it. How does a hole mete out any one shot? The hole/course is the medium for the sport. It's not a sport if the precise procedures are dictated ahead of time. As in, the scorecard does not say how.

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2010, 11:58:58 AM »
I wonder if it's not how a 150 yard shot on a hole on a certain course stacks up against other 150 yard shots on other courses.  The more demanding the shot the higher the shot value?

How do the magazine raters on GCA.com (come on, I know you're out there!) apply "shot values" to a course they are rating?

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #11 on: June 02, 2010, 12:22:34 PM »
I would use "value" in the same of what we would colloquially call "bang for the buck" or perhaps "value for money" in UK-speak.

Say you are in the fairway 144 yards from a hole cut in the back-left quadrant of a green. Bit more than a one-club breeze, hurting and from the right. Well that's a "shot", OK?

If the hole is question is on level ground, the green is dead flat and 12,000 square feet and the putting surface is damp enough that the ball sticks within a few feet of its landing spot there's not a lot in it. Pick the appropriate club for "144 into the wind", aim a little to the right and try to make a good swing.

Now make it slightly uphill, the green is firm, slight rise on the left edge of the green, slight fall to the right-front overall, surround it with bunker (both in play and flashed behind the green) and just for kicks have the sun sparkling off the ocean as a backdrop.



Which offers more "value" for your one shot? I'd argue that my first example is sort of the least "shot value" while the second is a better "shot value" altogether. But it's still one shot. If you judge the situation correctly and make a good swing you'll end up with a 10-foot putt for birdie either way, right?

That's the basic idea.

I assign Brent's post an a-pic value of 3.
Much higher than the usual value of 1.
But then the picture is from CPC which has a Doak value of 10.

EDIT: Looking again, I realized the a-pic value should be 2.5.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #12 on: June 02, 2010, 12:34:45 PM »
Bill, Recalling from years and years ago, Tony Naccarrato was emphatic that the term was made up at Golf Digest. Tom paul pulling the definition from Corrnish and Whitten would not discount that.

I recently played a course where the green contours were bold, albeit, not well thought out. I.e. A lions mouth bunker guarding the front and center of a green. Normally, that would be a very cool feature, but in this case, the architect gave no other way to play the approach shot, other than a full aerial assault. Since the course was extremely dry and firm, it would have been considerate to the creative shot maker to give at least one other avenue to approach the volcano like green.

Talking Stick North also came to mind in this shot value context. Since there are many open front greens, one might prematurely conclude there's less difficulty on approach because there's no bunker to carry. IMO, that analysis is flawed because the subtle contours create the interest and the short grass is the hazard.

So, as a rater, I don't think about this term at all and choose to focus on the variety inherit on each approach.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #13 on: June 02, 2010, 01:00:33 PM »
Bill, Recalling from years and years ago, Tony Naccarrato was emphatic that the term was made up at Golf Digest. Tom paul pulling the definition from Corrnish and Whitten would not discount that.

I recently played a course where the green contours were bold, albeit, not well thought out. I.e. A lions mouth bunker guarding the front and center of a green. Normally, that would be a very cool feature, but in this case, the architect gave no other way to play the approach shot, other than a full aerial assault. Since the course was extremely dry and firm, it would have been considerate to the creative shot maker to give at least one other avenue to approach the volcano like green.

Talking Stick North also came to mind in this shot value context. Since there are many open front greens, one might prematurely conclude there's less difficulty on approach because there's no bunker to carry. IMO, that analysis is flawed because the subtle contours create the interest and the short grass is the hazard.

So, as a rater, I don't think about this term at all and choose to focus on the variety inherit on each approach.

Adam, not sure which magazine you rate for, but do you have to assign an absolute value for "shot values?"

John Shimony

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #14 on: June 02, 2010, 01:12:35 PM »
That seems spot on Mr. Shivas.  The concept is entirely subjective.  The question is does the shot in front of someone have any value in one's own opinion.  If said person loves a challenge and the shot presents some interesting angles and hazards then in that person's opinion the shot has some value, how much depends on the persons standards of challenge and value.  If the shooter loves hazardless golf shots then a challenging shot has little value to that person. 

Simply, does a person find the shot to be fun.
John Shimony
Philadelphia, PA

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Shot values
« Reply #15 on: June 02, 2010, 01:15:10 PM »
Shivas:  Like you, I never use the term, because I think it is misunderstood and sometimes abused.

Basically, I think the term "shot values" implies that there ought to be some relationship between the golfer's execution of shots and the results the course gives him.  And I would agree with that, in principle.

But the whole topic revolves around what an APPROPRIATE relationship between execution and results should be.

Many believe that the relationship should be linear and direct; so the better a golfer they are, the more their definition of "shot values" will merge with "difficulty".  If a less than excellent shot always meets with trouble, that is a DIFFICULT golf course, not a "high shot value" course.

Golf course architects have to be more realistic about shot values if we are going to build courses that are fun for everyone to play.  You have to let a certain percentage of bad shots go unpunished ... Dr. MacKenzie compared it to cricket, in that not every bad ball is caught out by a fielder.  But to make the course interesting for very good players, there ought to be some shots which are extremely difficult.

The worst mis-use of the term is to think it implies (as some believe) that shot values should be consistent across the course -- that if you are playing a long par-4, you need to compensate by building a big flat green, or if you are building a short par-4, you need to make it narrower or the green needs to be hard to hit.  That's a recipe for "fair and boring."

TEPaul

Re: Shot values
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2010, 01:41:47 PM »
"That's the old "hard par, easy bogey" sschool of thought (if you can call it that) that leads to dull golf."


I am not so sure why one should automatically assume that the "hard par, easy bogey" school of thought (or actual architectural practice) should necessarily lead to dull golf.

I would think that one could make a good case that that school of thought (or actual architectural practice) could be considered the very essence of strategy (the old tortoise and hare analogy)---as well as the very essence of the dynamic of risk and reward actually broken down into the only real currency golf has----eg strokes!

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2010, 01:51:25 PM »
TEP,

The more interesting school is easy birdie, easier bogey.
AKA half-par holes
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2010, 02:14:03 PM »

2. Are there any features in course design today that you think are greatly overrated?

Hmmm ¦ I’ve always wondered what the ’shot value’ means. Seems to me, it’s different for each of us. It’s a buzz word (or term) that’s overused and abused ”as such it’s probably also overrated as a criterion for judging holes/courses.

Matt_Ward

Re: Shot values
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2010, 02:18:42 PM »
Scott:

Shot values to me is a rating mechanism in which I judge how a course requires me to play the widest array of clubs during a round. In addition, SV also require the player to adjust when needed to play shots with both movement / working the ball (from side-to-side) and with varying heights (trajectory) when called upon.

Some courses can be one dimensional in that only a few clubs are really needed for overall success. If a course overemphasizes one element over another -- it may still be a top tier layout -- but it's not as discerning as others that have a higher and more consistent bar for overall success.

A good example of a club that I see as being at the top of the charts regarding shot values is Merion East. You need to the full range of shots to succeed there.

Let me also point out that the proper call by the player for what tee boxes to be played is also crucial. Players should only play tee boxes within their ability level. The more one plays to the rear set of tees the greater the intensity and the greater need for execution will be called upon. Often times certain players will whine / cry about certain holes / courses as being unfair -- the better remedy is for them to heads towards the practice range and improve their game(s) before biting off too much than they can chew.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2010, 02:25:52 PM »
...
Some courses can be one dimensional in that only a few clubs are really needed for overall success. ...

That is exactly backwards! If you need a full set of clubs to play a course well, then the course is one dimensional as it is dictating exactly the shots you must play.

A course that gives you several options on the shots can be played with fewer clubs because of all the options. Pure and simple! It therefore is multidimensional.

"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Mike Vegis @ Kiawah

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2010, 02:27:24 PM »
According to Golf Digest:

Shot Values -- How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

Pine Valley had the highest shot value score in their latest ranking wiht 9.16 with Shinnecock second with 8.75 (quite a big gap between one and two).  Oakmont had 8.70, Winged Foot (West) had 8.60, Merion had 8.56 and Pebble had 8.49.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2010, 02:34:59 PM by Mike Vegis @ Kiawah »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2010, 05:09:50 PM »
one of my favorite topics, and I started thinking about it every since Dick Nugent uttered that phrase.

In general, I think there are several components to what a good player would say is a good shot value for any given shot.

KN had it about right to start, but there is also:

Doability:  This is the general "big green for a long shot concept. I think Tour Pros figure they can hit a target about 10% of the total shot length both wide and deep (about 20 yards deep, 20 wide for a 200 yard shot), whereas the USGA green size chart says about 15% wide and 22% deep for average players and low handicappers are somewhere in between to achieve a clear majority of golfers in each class hitting a green.

Seaonality:  Seemingly less important than it once was on most sites, a course should play nearly as well in all seasons it is in play.  This is the reason Scottish cousres are so wide open for the varying winds.

Does that mean that green sizes need to adhere strictly to the formula?  No,first because if we did, every approach shot on the course would be equally difficult (providing a reasonable tee shot on each hole)  That said, if a long iron approach has a smaller green then it has tougher shot values on that shot, and a course full of them would have tough shot values all around and would probably be dislikde. There are some basic physics involved and golfers are known to hit with certain amounts of accuracy. 

As such, can it be good design to build a hole that a majority of golfers can't play decently for them?  There should be exceptions to the rule, but they only stand out as great if they are exceptions and even then they should offer at least SOME hope, IMHO.  In other words, the Troon Postage Stamp green at the end of a 470 yard par 4 is probably an exageration of a smaller green on a longer hole (I have built small greens on long holes quite often, but don't elevate and bunker them like that, for instance)

Reachability:  In general, if you ask a golfer to carry a hazard, it should be an appropriate distance, like 270 yards for the pros (adjusted for conditions), down to no more than 90% of typical carry distance for other tees, down to no more than 90 yards from the forward tees.

Bail Out Ability:  Since any shot will be just beyond the ability of someone, always or nearly always have the option to play safe somewhere close to the target. 

Play Options:  Its fine if a hole strongly suggests a certain shot, but there should be an option for those who can't draw it around a tree for example. Similar to the Bail out, there should be room for the guy who fades the ball to land in the fw or some portion of the green. Forcing a certain shot type off the golf course has a low shot value.

Comfort: Some shots are more comfortable than others.  Discomfort (and I know TePaul will disagree that we should avoid this) comes from having to aim over OB or water and bringing it back.  Comfort comes when all signals point, to say a fade, and the target is built to accept a fade.  Signals include wind direction, slope of ground, angle of target, etc.  Most golfers love it when all the signals point the same way and think that is good shot value, whereas too many shots that must be played with a fade to a green built to hold a hook will be considered poor shot values, even if the gca can't really control the weather.

Proportionality: In general, a player who misses by a lot should be punished to a greater degree than one who misses by a little.  This can vary on either side of the hole, i.e., missing right by a foot can be more dangerous than missing left by five yards, but missing by three feet on the right should be penalized more than missing by a foot (I am probably cutting this example too close)

Risk Reward: Few will risk a nonrecoverable hazard if nothing is at stake.  If you ask a golfer to carry water, the reward ought to be at least one stroke with the possibility of two.  For other hazards, perhaps they ought to be shallower.  Do we have to follow this formula closely?  Again no, but a hole with a 20 foot bunker just for the heck of it would have tougher shot values, etc.

Balance:  Lots would argue this one, but in a competitive match there ought to be some semblance of balance in demands, so its not preordained that a long hitter or good chipper will have a distinct advantage.  Obviously, striving for this also imparts variety, which while not a shot value, per se, makes for a better course.

The USGA rating system tries to categorize these things with numbers, much the way the magazines try to rate courses with numbers, more than most here would care to do.  In the doability category, yeah, most greens ought to be basically sized for the shot at hand, but as noted, if they are, then every single green might end up with the exact same shot value in terms of doability, which is wrong.  A great course would have at least a few harder and a few easier, IMHO.

We can debate whether there needs to be 100% carryability, but in the end, its seems pretty lame to ask anyone to try a shot they know is doomed to failure.  Similaly, in the end, its not bright to ask a competitive golfer to pull off a shot at the high end of his/her skill level if there is no real reward in doing so.  Lastly, while not always a requirement, balance and balananced balance (not nine hook holes on the front and nine slice holes on the back) would be generally supported by most.

I think the biggest sticking points in the above general outline are proportional punishment - which just can't always be achieved and the idea of a comfortable shot, again, simply not achievable on most sites, especially where the wind is variable.

At any rate, that is my take of Dick Nugent's words 30 years later, adding in the philosophies of all the better players and Tour Pros I know.  I know many here would point out the exceptions, but as Dick Nugent also said - exceptions do stand out, but if you make too many of them on one course, at some point it turns from a nice test to a goofy one.  I still think that is basically the correct take, and of course, the magic is knowing where that sweet crossover spot is.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

David_Madison

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #23 on: June 02, 2010, 06:53:28 PM »
I agree with all of the definitions provided here, and I factor all of this in when I'm doing a rating. My simple version is that something with a high shot value is one where I want to take a big bucket of balls out to the spot and hit them as many different ways that seem to make sense. I could stay at that spot for an hour trying different things and not be bored. A low shot value situation has very limited options and interest, usually just the "stock" shot.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Shot values
« Reply #24 on: June 02, 2010, 07:17:29 PM »
I agree with all of the definitions provided here, and I factor all of this in when I'm doing a rating. My simple version is that something with a high shot value is one where I want to take a big bucket of balls out to the spot and hit them as many different ways that seem to make sense. I could stay at that spot for an hour trying different things and not be bored. A low shot value situation has very limited options and interest, usually just the "stock" shot.

I'll count you as another dissenter from Matt W's comments.
 :)
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne