Options of Play - Are they overrated ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Freguently, one hears that the key to good golf architecture, or enjoyable golf is to play a course with many options of play,
but, I was thinking about a few well regarded golf courses, and some of their holes, and many, were without any options.

So, how important are options of play ?
Are they overrated ?
Are they the figment of our inflated immaginations ?

Where are the options at:

#  2 at Seminole
# 17 at Baltusrol (lower)
#  6 at NGLA
#  6 at Pine Tree
# 17 at Prestwick
#  5 at Seminole
# 16 at Winged Foot (west)
# 11 at Shinnecock
#  4 at Baltusrol (lower)
# 16 at Pine Tree
#  4 at Seminole
# 15 at NGLA
#  2 at GCGC
#  6 at Shinnecock
# 18 at Winged Foot (west)
# 17 at Seminole
#  8 at GCGC
# 10 at Winged Foot (west)
# 11 at Seminole
#   6 at GCGC

I could go on and on.

It would seem that par 3's, followed by par 4's, then par 5's,
are the order of diminished options.

So how can it be claimed that a great hole, and a great golf course must have multiple options, when some of the best have but one ?

[APBernstein]

Patrick:

I certainly don't believe that options of play are overrated.  I also don't believe that a hole that offers one and only one option is worthless, as you demonstrate.

There is something to be said for a hole that calls for pure execution.  If a hole calls for one shot and the players succeeds in hitting that shot, there is something to be said for the reward he receives.  It can still be called strategy, but maybe not in the sense that we talk about on this site so often.

With that said, I like variety.  In my mind, a course can have a mix between holes with 50 yard fairways as well as the occaisional hole that calls for one shot, as you note can considered great holes.

I think variety is the key.  Eighteen straight holes of one option gets very monotonous.

[Richard_Goodale]

To me "options of play" are only interesting if they exist for the accomplished golfer.  The fact that any hacker can choose from vaious options the way to tack to the green at the 14th at TOC is intersting at first sight, but trivial once you understand that these sort of "options" exist for the average golfer on virtually every golf hole that exists.  Likewise the fact that there is an "option" of bailing out to the left at the 8th at Pebble Beach for the weak of heart or swing speed.  On the other hand, at the 18th at PB, with todays technology and player skill level, there are real options, with real risks and rewards.  Great courses have these holes, as well as holes such as you list which require one (or 2) precise shots, as well as some holes which offer the skilled player high level challenges, but give the higher handicapper some option for tacking his or her way to the same result as the low marker.  As Andrew says, variety is the key.

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

I think you are right about par threes tending to have less options, if I read you right. But for example, #10 Winged Foot West has a least two options. Fly the green or run it up from the center of the approach. Now in terms of setting up the hole, there are a variety of options in where they cut the cup. There is also some variety in distance even if there is just one tee. I don't remember the tees at Winged Foot being all that large, but there must still be a one or two club difference between the front and back of the tee. There is also always the chance that the wind will change the course in some locales.

Except for the golf swing itself, which should be repeated for consistency, variety is the spice of golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Running the ball up, between the bunkers at # 10 at Winged Foot (west) is like parting the water and about as likely.

The skill level for that shot is almost non-existant.

The 10th tee is relatively small.

Rich Goodale,

The 7th at Pebble certainly offers no options, keeping my par 3 theory in good standing, and, on paper we can all see options, but can we execute them in the field, on the tee, or in the fairway.

Do the aerial aspects of the game eliminate options

[CB Macdonald]

Mr. Mucci

Are options of play overrated??
I shall answer your question with a question.
If the many options of play didn't exist on all of the other holes that you didn't list at your beloved NGLA, then it wouldn't be your beloved NGLA would it?

I think the same question would be relevant to every other golf course that you listed!
Yours truly,
CB

[Richard_Goodale]

Patrick

Whatever your par-3 theory is, it is shattered by such holes at the 2nd at Dornoch or the 17th at Merion where "laying up" can be the optimal strategy if all you need is a 4, and an "other" is very much possible.

[LeeH]

Rich
thats a really neat point about options being everywhere for the "duffer" golfer, its something I often get confused about when people sketch in "ways to play this hole" since you could criss cross a hole a million ways if you include all levels of golfer skill, so these really cant be counted as options.

But then I thought of par 3s and I used to think options would be having run off areas or swails where you could choose to play and take a chip/putt par as options but using the theory above would that count as an option since that only would be relevant to a golfer not really able to execute a good shot to the green.

[Richard_Goodale]

LeeH

See my post directly above yours, which crossed.  It is very hard to do so, but par 3's with legitimate "bail out" options exist and can be designed.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

I believe options of play are overrated when they are described as "the key to good architecture".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I think you might be confusing holes that lean toward the 'penal' with holes that lean toward the 'strategic'. They all provide options but with some the penality/risk is quite high. For me variety is the spice of life.

[Mike O'Neill]

Patrick,

If you believe that a run up shot on #10 is highly unlikely, you've never played golf with Dan Proctor. He can hit that shot with a knock-down two wood, real wood mind you for superior feel. A true Texan when it comes to the knock-down shot, though now a transplanted Nebraskan where he gets his fill of wind also.

Speaking of Dan Proctor, he can design and build a three par with options galore. I helped him do so at Bayside in Nebraska, #17. There must be 10 different ways to get from the tee to the green depending on the location of the pin and how you want to play the shot--high or low or both if you play the hillside correctly. Nobody here has seen the hole, so there's not use in detailing it. But it is the exception to your par three theory.

By the way, any green that is totally surrounded by sand is limited in terms of options. Sometimes the lack of options (see #7 at Pebble Beach), coupled with such things as wind is what creates the difficulty of a hole. And sometimes, pure difficulty is what gives a hole its "reputation" as being great. I guess we have different options when it comes to defining what is a great golf hole.

[ChipOat]

Pat Mucci:

Point well taken on windless par 3's although #16 at Cypress might be the exception regardless of conditions.  In tough weather, and particularly in match play, don't most par 3's offer some "bail out" options in a quest for a safe 4 (#17 at TPC and #10 at Pine Valley being notable exceptions)?

As to the 4's and 5's you mentioned, it seems to me that most straightaway holes without cross hazards don't lend themselves to strategic options UNLESS THE GREEN IS ANGLED/BUNKERED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO CREATE A "WRONG" AND "RIGHT" SIDE TO THE FAIRWAY AND THE "RIGHT" SIDE FORCES THE PLAYER TO EXECUTE A DANGEROUS SHOT IN ORDER TO GET THERE.  This is the genius of Merion.

Not all holes need to be this strategic to be good, of course.  Garden City #6 is an excellent "in your face" tough par 4.  The 2nd shot on #15 at Pine Valley is as optionless as a par 5 can be.

A course full of hard 4's and 5's would be boring (I hear Medinah qualifies).  Similarly, a course full of strategic holes would be "cute" (many Shinnecock lovers think National fits that bill).

Options of play are not unimportant and not over-rated.  Neither should they be the only M.O. for building all golf holes.  When the land cries out for a hole where only hero's can thrive, build it!

[JEarle]

Mucci,
  You site some good golf holes that provide little or no options. But the point that you are missing is the variety of golf holes within any specific course. Haven't we seen enough of the cookie-cutter, long and boring courses built during the late 60's to late 80's? Courses that are void of any strategy or options. These courses remind me of the Levittown (post war suburbia) everything looking, feeling and playing the same. Were technology and growing demands overshadowed architecture and design.

[TEPaul]

I guess this comes down to how we look at what options are and the various ways options (choices) can create differences in strategies and ultimately score.

I think many of us probably look at options many times as single shot choices period, end of story, and all too often we look at options as opportunities to go this way or that way or carry this bunker or not on a particular shot period. We may not forget that options do relate to what comes next generally speaking but many times we forget exactly how choices and options on a single shot may relate to what comes next, certainly in an overall risk/reward context or a series of them or in a context that ultimately relates to scoring, even on a short par 3 like NGLA's #6.

Any good option to me relates to the degrees of risks and rewards either immediately or sometime in the future and those risks and rewards very much relate to different possibilities in score. Sometimes an architect may give you something that appears to have no options at all like the enormously wide open tee shot on #15 at Pacific Dunes. But are there good options there on that tee shot? There certainly are. You just have to look much farther down the hole to see how the the rest of the hole relates to that enormously wide open fairway that appears to have no options or even anything of meaning to it--but most golfers probably don't do that--even good players sometimes.

But I believe #15's tee shot has sophisticated options because they aren't apparent, they aren't defined but they do have meaning but only because of what comes next or even after that. And they can be better and more interesting options because they give the golfer real freedom of choice and don't put a specific shot demand on him on the tee. But whatever the golfer chooses to do on that tee he'll probably have to string together a number of well thought out shots to play the hole well--whatever his initial tee shot option is.

To me golf holes that have very little in the way of risk/reward anywhere aren't much good and neither are holes that might have even very severe risk/rewards on each and every shot but where those risks/rewards and the options involved in them are just incremental and don't interrelate very well with what comes next or even after that.

I think a lot of us might think of options which are obviously the incremental factors of strategies as a number of "right" ways to go on each and every shot on a hole. Where some of the best holes that really do have options but might not really appear to, involve only the degrees of "right" and the degrees of "wrong" (or dangerous or less so) all relating to probably a fairly wide spectrum of score possibilities. Again, I think good holes and probably multi-option ones (although not always apparent) are holes that tend to produce wide score spectrums throughout the levels of golfers, for whatever reason.

I would disagree with Pat's selection of some of the holes he listed as not really having any options--particularly NGLA and even the ones at Seminole. I think they do have options just ones that may not be very apparent to most golfers for a variety of reasons.

The putting surface alone on NGLA's #6 might even be the world's most starkly optional. Most people probably don't think that much about options when they have a putter in their hand but a good player probably will. If you happen to find yourself in the wrong section of that green the likihood of two putting is quite remote and that is something to very much consider in what to do on your first putt. If you go for the gusto and try to two putt instead of only trying to get it to the correct section you are quite likely to fail to get into the correct section of the green and then you're faced once again with the same problem of the unlikelihood of two putting. So if you don't understand or appreciate those clearcut options the first time (first putt) the best you can probably expect to do is four putt overall--and that's a bit of a shock! All because of some really sophisticated options on the putting surface alone and all resulting in the potential of a wide score spectrum!

All strategies involve options somehow whether those options are stark or subtle and it all relates to a score spectrum somehow and generally a wide one if the hole and the options are good and interesting or complex.

A course like Seminole as with many of the good Ross courses have many holes that might not appear to have much in the way of options but they are also the holes that more than most courses result in bogies and doubles from even good players who are actually hitting good shots although maybe not the most intelligent shots. And that's probably because even those good players fail to notice the subtle options or to appreciate them enough!

[Richard_Goodale]

TEP

One of my playing partners had a simple 120 foot 2-putt from back left to the right front pin position on #6 NGLA.  I laid up (chunked it into the cabbage) and got my 3 with a helicopter wedge to 10-feet and the boringly perfect CLAW putt.  What's so hard about that hole?

[TEPaul]

Rich;

Everything you've said about NGLA since seeing the course just leads me to believe more and more in the importance of this thing I call the "ideal maintenance meld".

I can't imagine what it played like really but everytime I've seen the course a 120ft two putt from back left over to the right green section on #6 is just not doable unless the golfer sinks a return chip or quite lengthy comeback putt. With those greens really up to speed your chances of making a 3 from wherever you were might have actually been better with the ideal maintenance meld.

[Mark_Fine]

Just curious, how many of you play your home course differently on a regular basis.  Even in this group, my guess is most of us play it pretty much the same way everytime regardless how "strategic" it is.  If you do play it differently, why do you do so?  Is it a function of your game and how well you are playing or is it because the hole dictates that you play it differently?  Or is it maybe because you just want to hit different shots.  I know sometimes I play with just 5 or 6 clubs but it's just for fun and to practice different golf shots.      

To me, one of the biggest factors impacting "options of play" is the weather and course conditions - amount of wind, rain, hot, cold, soft turf, firm turf, ...).  Doesn't this have a big impact on the options on most courses?  And again the other factor is simply how we are playing that particular day.  
Mark

[APBernstein]

Mark:

In most cases, it may be as simple as moving the hole location from one side of the green to the other.

We always talk about different strategies and how risk should be rewarded and how the best courses offer us different routes and whatnot.  But even the most simple courses offers some strategy change when the flag is moved.  It may be on a much different level than that of a top course, but it is still there.

What I am getting at is that moving the hole location at a top course further increases the different "options of play".  What was ideal yesterday may be much different today.  That can be true at any course.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Actually that's a great question of yours. I tend to play my course about the same way all the time and one of the reasons is it is about the same all the time. If they would just firm the goddamn course up some (something they have really never done) I'm sure I would be playing it lots of different ways!! But there's that lack of understanding of the "ideal maintenance meld" again.

Actually the last time I played your place it was fairly firm--nothing like what it could be but a lot more so than my place ever is. This lack of firmness "through the green"  and the lack of "approach" firmness is really starting to get under my skin---my course is just never really showing all that it can  do and be!!

But good question--playing one's course the same way everyday is not a very encouraging sign!

[THuckaby2]

Rich;

Everything you've said about NGLA since seeing the course just leads me to believe more and more in the importance of this thing I call the "ideal maintenance meld".

I can't imagine what it played like really but everytime I've seen the course a 120ft two putt from back left over to the right green section on #6 is just not doable unless the golfer sinks a return chip or quite lengthy comeback putt. With those greens really up to speed your chances of making a 3 from wherever you were might have actually been better with the ideal maintenance meld.

You hit the nail on the head here, TEP.  As the playing partner who hit the world's wildest pull and then accomplished said 120 foot two putt, all I can say is.... the green had been recently aerated.  Speed wasn't a concern at all.  I shudder to think what I might have done if the green was normal speed.  Oh yes, options would have had to be considered indeed.

BTW, ask Mr. Boringly Perfect Claw there how he putted on quick greens at Shinnecock... Let's just say the putts were far from boring!  That day at NGLA on the aerated greens though, oh man was he en fuego.  What this says about the "claw", well, we can draw our own conclusions.  Watching Sutherland wield it this weekend though, I did indeed give it a try again on the carpet... and well... I remain convinced it's the grip of desparation.  But it does keep ones wrists locked to some extent.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Andrew makes an excellent point about pin positions.  That is a big factor at Lehigh as many of the holes play completely different depending on the location of the pin.  

I'm still curious how many people (when they really think about it) play their home course differently on a routine basis!  Maybe a better question is could they play it much differently (if they had the game to do so or if they wanted to)?  
Mark

[Tyler Kearns]

TEPaul,
      i agree with your assessment that once on the putting surface at NGLA #6, one is faced with a number of options in order to secure a par. due to the severe undulations on that green, it is fair to say that the strategic element of that hole extends back to the tee, with club selection and/or ball flight, whatever will help you place your ball in the appropriate location for a two-putt par. the careless attitude that because the hole is a mere 135-yards will definitely lead to more 4's than the conscious strategic approach that weighs out the options in order to make the most favorable stroke at securing a 3.

Pat,
      no, options are not an overrated quality in golf and golf course architecture!

[Mike O'Neill]

What if we twist this around for a second. What do we have when someone builds a green and totally wraps it in water, invites the legions to take a seat and then sends the pros in to throw darts at the short grass? We have a spectacle to be sure. But do we have a great golf hole? Number 7 at Pebble Beach is just a short wedge shot to a well guarded green on a windless course somewhere in Missouri if not for the Pacific ocean. Augusta #12 is not in the same gimmick league as an island green. The pros actually seem to be choosing one side of the green or the other depending on the risk and all. And of course, that hole is spectacular in its beauty and mystical in its place in Amen Corner. But does having to say a prayer before hitting make a hole a great hole? Can I get an Amen?

[Richard_Goodale]

Amen.