Galloway National: A Fazio Course I ACTUALLY LIKE

[mike_malone]

 You would have to be silly to try to get to that area of 300 yards ( what is it from the forward tess?). The hole says "keep it in the short grass and hit more club". When there are so many trees paralleling the hole the penalty for being off line is too severe to bother taking on that bunker. I think the reason that bunker is there is something other than playing golf.

  Now, if that bunker is maintained so that it is easy to hit out of then it isn't a problem but then it isn't a hazard either.

[Rory Connaughton]

Given the scale, I suppose its not really even a bunker as much as it is a waste area (even if it is treated as a bunker under the rules). It strikes me Mike that, like some of those areas at PV, the point of the area is to exact a penalty plain and simple.

[mike_malone]

 My experience at Pine Valley was that most of the large waste areas were ultra strategic. How much you bit off was purely a function of your assessment of your skill. What could be grander than that? GN's message was "stay away".

[Rory Connaughton]

2?
3?
7?

Each seems like pretty good examples of penal architecture in contrast to 6 or 16 for example where there is a real benefit to taking on the hazard.

[Kyle Harris]

Joe:

There doesn't appear to be any reason to take on the narrow area at 300 yards, so it doesn't much matter what is demanded of that particular shot. A player who can place the ball 300 yards away with the driver can probably place the ball 270 yards away with a 3wood and still have the same advantage on the next shot. What features of the green make playing to the narrow area at 300 yards the ideal play?

If the fairway bled into the fairway that is angled toward the tee a bit more, I think it would enhance that bunker's strategic value. From the photos, it looks like the bunker in this instance simply turns the hole without really providing a decision point for the player.

[Carl Nichols]

The World Woods hole looks more strategic. Don't you want to be left bringing the bunker into play so that you don't get caught behind the trees on the right?

Isn't that generally true of the GN hole as well? 

[Joe Bausch]

Joe:

There doesn't appear to be any reason to take on the narrow area at 300 yards, so it doesn't much matter what is demanded of that particular shot. A player who can place the ball 300 yards away with the driver can probably place the ball 270 yards away with a 3wood and still have the same advantage on the next shot. What features of the green make playing to the narrow area at 300 yards the ideal play?

If the fairway bled into the fairway that is angled toward the tee a bit more, I think it would enhance that bunker's strategic value. From the photos, it looks like the bunker in this instance simply turns the hole without really providing a decision point for the player.

Because of some taller trees that come out from the right maybe 75 yards short of the green, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to take the chance of bombing the drive and carrying the bunker.  But being along the edge of the bunker on the left is a better line into the green that is diagonally situated.  Playing out "safe" to the middle and shorter leaves a much harder shot in with those trees really being in play.

On Saturday the pin was up and left.  I hit a very good drive right along the bunker and had 140ish in.  There is little or no back to front tilt in this green so my iron that maybe went right over the pin tumbled off the green.  If my drive could have been even further along, I'd like my chances even better with an even shorter iron.

[Matt_Ward]

Frankly, the smart play at GN is often to drop down in distance being sought and get the best angle into the target.

No doubt there are some longer holes whereby that can't be so easily done.

Driving the ball well at GN sets up the whole day -- it also sets up big time failure when you don't execute. Too many courses here on GCA often accentuate the greens and surrounding areas - to TF's credit the course does but considerable pressure off the tee to get to those desired locations. Throw in any wind and when the course plays firm and fast and you have to buckle down the chin strap to do well.

[Kyle Harris]

Joe:

There doesn't appear to be any reason to take on the narrow area at 300 yards, so it doesn't much matter what is demanded of that particular shot. A player who can place the ball 300 yards away with the driver can probably place the ball 270 yards away with a 3wood and still have the same advantage on the next shot. What features of the green make playing to the narrow area at 300 yards the ideal play?

If the fairway bled into the fairway that is angled toward the tee a bit more, I think it would enhance that bunker's strategic value. From the photos, it looks like the bunker in this instance simply turns the hole without really providing a decision point for the player.

Because of some taller trees that come out from the right maybe 75 yards short of the green, there doesn't really seem to be any reason to take the chance of bombing the drive and carrying the bunker.  But being along the edge of the bunker on the left is a better line into the green that is diagonally situated.  Playing out "safe" to the middle and shorter leaves a much harder shot in with those trees really being in play.

On Saturday the pin was up and left.  I hit a very good drive right along the bunker and had 140ish in.  There is little or no back to front tilt in this green so my iron that maybe went right over the pin tumbled off the green.  If my drive could have been even further along, I'd like my chances even better with an even shorter iron.

What's the difference in yardage? For a longer hitter, I think the difference between 140 and 160 is trivial. Your description and the aerial seem to suggest that the further right one goes, the shorter the shot should be from the tee to maintain position on the same oblique line passing through the center of the green. It seems like the hole offers a clear advantage to a long hitter dialing back over a modest hitter of a similar skill level (just with different skill sets) having to play to their personal max off the tee. The shorter hitters are forced to take on the bunker while the longer hitters are granted more options in club selection due to the geometry of the hole.

I'm not saying it's a bad hole, it just doesn't seem terribly strategic. The hazards are situated in a manner that makes them punitive, not decisive.

[JNC Lyon]

The waste bunker at Galloway's 4th is very effective as a strategic hazard.  The player should be as close to the bunker as possible without going in it to gain the best angle into the green.  Joe and I both hit drivers down the left side and had good angles into the green.  I wasn't even thinking about carrying the bunker off the tee, because the hole was into a stiff breeze.  If the golfer plays away from the bunker he will have a longer shot into the green or a poor angle.

Because of the angle of the dogleg, the hole is a bit awkward and could be more strategic.  However, the waste bunker serves effectively as a strategic hazard: flirt with it to gain the best angle in, or play it away from it and face a very tough four.

[Kyle Harris]

The waste bunker at Galloway's 4th is very effective as a strategic hazard.  The player should be as close to the bunker as possible without going in it to gain the best angle into the green.  Joe and I both hit drivers down the left side and had good angles into the green.  I wasn't even thinking about carrying the bunker off the tee, because the hole was into a stiff breeze.  If the golfer plays away from the bunker he will have a longer shot into the green or a poor angle.

Because of the angle of the dogleg, the hole is a bit awkward and could be more strategic.  However, the waste bunker serves effectively as a strategic hazard: flirt with it to gain the best angle in, or play it away from it and face a very tough four.

Playing an angle is not a very good definition of strategic hazard placement, IMO. That's a simple geometric issue that exists on all dogleg holes. The bunker seems to add little more to the equation than being a different lie than varying lengths of turf. If the dogleg corner were without the bunker, ceteris paribus, the hole would still play the same.

Ask yourself the question, that if you were to replace the bunker with rough, how do the shot options on the hole change?

[Carl Nichols]

It seems like the hole offers a clear advantage to a long hitter dialing back over a modest hitter of a similar skill level (just with different skill sets) having to play to their personal max off the tee. The shorter hitters are forced to take on the bunker while the longer hitters are granted more options in club selection due to the geometry of the hole.

Kyle-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this usually the case?  On most holes a long hitter can dial back and hit a 3-wood (or less) to where the shorter hitter can put the driver, and still have a shorter iron in because he hits his irons longer.  (See, e.g., #13 at Augusta.) But from what Joe and JNC are saying, it's still better for the longer hitter to be as close as possible to the waste bunker, so both the longer hitter and shorter hitter have to decide whether to play away from it (and have a longer shot or worse angle) or close to hit (and risk going in).  

[Carl Nichols]

Ask yourself the question, that if you were to replace the bunker with rough, how do the shot options on the hole change?

Depends on the rough.  If it's pretty playable, and you don't have much risk of a terrible lie (which you clearly do in a waste bunker), the rough would be much less likely to force you to play safe and right. 

[Kyle Harris]

It seems like the hole offers a clear advantage to a long hitter dialing back over a modest hitter of a similar skill level (just with different skill sets) having to play to their personal max off the tee. The shorter hitters are forced to take on the bunker while the longer hitters are granted more options in club selection due to the geometry of the hole.

Kyle-
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this usually the case?  On most holes a long hitter can dial back and hit a 3-wood (or less) to where the shorter hitter can put the driver, and still have a shorter iron in because he hits his irons longer.  (See, e.g., #13 at Augusta.) But from what Joe and JNC are saying, it's still better for the longer hitter to be as close as possible to the waste bunker, so both the longer hitter and shorter hitter have to decide whether to play away from it (and have a longer shot or worse angle) or close to hit (and risk going in).  

If Joe only had 140 in then I don't believe the bunker is far enough away from the green to make a difference for the long hitter. What club will be in the hands of a player that can place a tee shot 300 yards away from 140? 8-iron AT MOST. So place him 10-20 yards further away along the same line and we're still in the mid to short-iron territory.

I think if the shot were significantly further... say in the 180-200 yard category, you could make a considerable argument for the strategic nature of the hole but from that distance of an approach I doubt the better player is even going to consider playing near the bunker. Also, if the bunker extended into the area where Joe and John hit their tee shots, at an oblique angle from the tee - we'd be in the strategic hazard territory.

Risk: Playing near or away from the bunker
Reward: An approach of 140 vs. 150 yards

Doesn't seem worth it.

[Kyle Harris]

Ask yourself the question, that if you were to replace the bunker with rough, how do the shot options on the hole change?

Depends on the rough.  If it's pretty playable, and you don't have much risk of a terrible lie (which you clearly do in a waste bunker), the rough would be much less likely to force you to play safe and right. 

Not sure I agree with the clarity of risk. A better player would much rather have a clear lie in a compacted waste bunker than a lie in any sort of longer grass. The hazard of the bunker or waste area from that distance really only exists for the lesser player, IMO.

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle,

A penal hazard is one to be avoided at all costs.  A strategic hazard is one to be flirted with to gain an advantage.  If you flirt with the bunker on the left on Galloway's 4th, you will gain an advantage.  Hence it is strategic.

Any hazard will impose a penalty on the golfer, but that does not make it penal.

Also, I hit my drive on the same line as Joe, but I had about 175 into the green.

[Joe Bausch]

Kyle, how would you evaluate the strategy on the 18th at WW-PB, a course I know you've played more than once?

[Kyle Harris]

Gents:

I fear this is a question of how rigor in definition of the terms "strategic" and "penal" as well as the complexity of the strategy to be employed.

First of all.

JNC:

Your definition of penal hazard as compared to strategic hazard is messy, in my opinion. A hazard which has a penal nature (really deep, severally limiting options of play, etc.) is to be avoided at all costs. A hazard which is placed in a penal manner MUST be contended with to accomplish the hole (read: forced carry or hazards placed only to punish poor execution).

I do not agree with your definition of strategic hazard. It is a far too vague and does little to actually further the understanding of golf strategy in my opinion. I think you would agree that there are hazards in golf which A: influence strategy on the hole and B: would not offer any clear advantage to be near. An example of this is the road hole bunker on the 17th at the Old Course. If you want to say there are hazards in the game that influence the strategy of the hole by existing in locations where the golfer is attempting to play in order to gain an advantage for the next shot, then I would agree, but this is a subset of strategic hazards and not the categorical definition.

For me, a hazard is strategic if it's location is an influence on the strategy for the hole. A hazard is penal if it is placed in a manner which only punishes poor execution. It is in these definitions that I cannot see the bunker as a strategic hazard. If the bunker were taken away, the play would still be to the portion of the fairway where you and Joe hit your tee shots. Furthermore, if the bunker were taken away, the risk on the execution of this shot would be altered, however, this is only a tactical dilemma and does not change the fact that the portion of the fairway in which you located your tee shot is still the ideal position. The bunker is there to catch a mishit, it does not influence the ideal line taken from the tee.

Another way of putting it - did you place your tee shot in that spot because the bunker was there or because the geometry of the dogleg provided that was the most advantageous position within your range of skill for the next shot? I'll bet the bunker entered into the equation AFTER you considered the geometry of the hole, and not before.

Joe:

Both times I played the 18th at WW I was in the bunker after very poorly struck drives from the white tee, which according to my scorecard played 376. I remember hitting 6iron from 170 yards over the green on one occasion. In both instances, I was aiming to play over the bunker but not as near as possible to the bunker. What is the scale of the aerial comparison you showed? I also think the putting green is visible from the tee on the 18th at WW, no?

For me, from that yardage, the idea of strategy is almost non-existent and the hole becomes one of tactical execution. Executing a 230-250 yard tee shot into some part of the fairway inside the dogleg leaves an approach of under 150 yards from which another well-executed shot will hold the putting surface. The hazard inside the dogleg does little to influence the line of play outside of simply asking the golfer how much of the hazard can be carried and the hazards are placed to catch wayward shots.

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle,

I agree my definition was a little vague.  I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives.  There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs.  Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.

As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example.  These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack.  Forced carries often accomplish the same thing.  A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.  There is a penal aspect to Galloway's 4th, but I believe the trees lining the fairway are the penal hazard.

On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it.  If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle.  The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green.  Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I agree my definition was a little vague.  I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives.  There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs.  Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.

As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example.  These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack.  Forced carries often accomplish the same thing.  A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.

On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it.  If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle.  The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green.  Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.

So after you hit your drives you wrote four on the card and walked to the next tee? What makes you so certain that being that near to the bunker made your next shot significantly easier than being away from it. You said you had 175 yards out and Joe had 140 yards out, but you hit along the same line. How did the bunker influence that difference? Did it, or did the variance in your skill? Did Joe take on more of the hazard to gain that distance advantage?

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle,

I agree my definition was a little vague.  I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives.  There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs.  Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.

As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example.  These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack.  Forced carries often accomplish the same thing.  A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.

On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it.  If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle.  The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green.  Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.

So after you hit your drives you wrote four on the card and walked to the next tee? What makes you so certain that being that near to the bunker made your next shot significantly easier than being away from it. You said you had 175 yards out and Joe had 140 yards out, but you hit along the same line. How did the bunker influence that difference? Did it, or did the variance in your skill? Did Joe take on more of the hazard to gain that distance advantage?

No, but I think the advantage we had from taking on the hazards allowed us to make four.  I had to a scramble a bit for my four, but it would have been a much tougher four had I hit my drive the same distance on a different line.  If I had hit the same drive twenty yards to the right, I would have had a much longer shot into the green that would have been harder to control.  Instead, I left my five-iron second shot just right of the green for a straightforward up-and-down.  If I had hit a longer drive away from the bunker, I would have had about the same distance but a worse angle.

Our tee shots landed in a similar spot, but Joe's hit a downslope just ahead of mine and kicked well forward.  We took on the hazard equally, and Joe's drive landed with a better bounce, giving him a distance advantage.  If the pin had been in the back right (over the greenside bunker), my angle would have been preferable.

[Mark McKeever]

Kyle,

Joe is on roids.  Thats how he got the advantage.

Mark

[JNC Lyon]

Kyle,

Joe is on roids.  Thats how he got the advantage.

Mark

Seriously.  He kills it when he wants to--he kind of looks like John Daly at the top too.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I agree my definition was a little vague.  I meant my definition for hazards that affect tee shots on par fours and layup second shots on par fives.  There is no tee shot hazard that would be both strategic and advantageous to avoid at all costs.  Second shot hazards are much trickier and harder to define as overtly penal or strategic.

As for a penal hazard, I think of bunkers on the sides of fairways most commonly as an example.  These bunkers punish bad shots rather than guarding the optimal angle of attack.  Forced carries often accomplish the same thing.  A non-negotiatable 200-yard carry will only punish poor tee shots, unless the carry is of a diagonal nature.

On the 4th at Galloway, I sought to place my tee shot as close to the bunker as possible without going in it.  If the bunker were replaced by easily negotiable rough, I would have driven well left of where I did, into the rough, to shorten the approach and get a better angle.  The geometry of the dogleg was part of my choice, but clearly the bunker also guarded the best spot from which to approach the green.  Joe and I hit drives that successfully courted trouble, and we both made par as a result.

So after you hit your drives you wrote four on the card and walked to the next tee? What makes you so certain that being that near to the bunker made your next shot significantly easier than being away from it. You said you had 175 yards out and Joe had 140 yards out, but you hit along the same line. How did the bunker influence that difference? Did it, or did the variance in your skill? Did Joe take on more of the hazard to gain that distance advantage?

No, but I think the advantage we had from taking on the hazards allowed us to make four.  I had to a scramble a bit for my four, but it would have been a much tougher four had I hit my drive the same distance on a different line.  If I had hit the same drive twenty yards to the right, I would have had a much longer shot into the green that would have been harder to control.  Instead, I left my five-iron second shot just right of the green for a straightforward up-and-down.  If I had hit a longer drive away from the bunker, I would have had about the same distance but a worse angle.

Our tee shots landed in a similar spot, but Joe's hit a downslope just ahead of mine and kicked well forward.  We took on the hazard equally, and Joe's drive landed with a better bounce, giving him a distance advantage.  If the pin had been in the back right (over the greenside bunker), my angle would have been preferable.

Ah. So Joe's 35 yard advantage had absolutely nothing to do with the location of the hazard...

....therefore, one could gain a 35 yard distance advantage on the hole without even considering the hazard.

What is the strategic decision forced by the bunker, again? Everything you've described above seems more and more influenced by the geometry of the dogleg with a bunker at the turn to catch a poor struck shot. The bunker seems to act more as one of the penal framing hazards you describe above than as a strategic hazard. Isn't is possible to carry the hazard completely and still have a poor angle because of the trees? There are instances where taking on the hazard will give the golfer no advantage, which then forces a tactical decision of club selection.

It sounds like, if the bunker were located where your ball landed - but not where Joe's landed - you could make the strategic hazard argument. Also, if the trees inside the dogleg were completely removed, the bunker would be far more influential on the strategy of the hole.

[JNC Lyon]

Without the bunker, the play would be to cut off the inside of the dogleg without thought.  With the bunker there, the strategy is to drive as close to the bunker as possible without going in.  From the tee, the golfer also considers driving away from the bunker to avoid the penalty of hitting from the waste area on the second shot.  The angle as well as the distance is better from the left, close to the bunker.

The geometry of the dogleg definitely has something to do with the decision.  The hazard is not perfect either, and if it had the shape you describe it would be more effective.  However, the bunker forces the player to make a decision from the tee: do I want to challenge the bunker to get a better shot into the green, or should play safely away from it to sacrifice distance and angle?  The distance decision is important, because with certain hole locations the player will have a better angle from 175 than from 140.

I didn't see carrying the hazard as a viable option from the tee, and I'm not sure when it would ever be an option.