[Don_Mahaffey]

There was a post on a thread not so long ago where Ben Sims was reflecting on a morning at Wolf Point spent with me as we selected hole locations and cut some cups for our round later that afternoon. Ben quoted me saying something like “its not a matter of the ball stopping as it rolls downhill, it matters whether the ball will stop at the hole when putting up hill” I don’t remember exactly what I said but that’s close.

I think to some that sounds a bit severe, and it could be, but in this case Ben took it a bit out of context, and I’d like to explain why I think in this situation and on this particular hole it was the best hole location under the conditions.

We were cutting the hole on the 13th, and the tee I had selected made the hole  a 495 yard par 4. Sounds long, except it was playing straight down a 25 mph wind, and the ground was firm. The 13th green slopes hard left to right and has a diagonal ridge running through the middle. The front half is tilted toward the tee, the back half away. On this day the hole was cut on the back half. So, if you came up short and stayed on the front half, you had to putt up and over a ridge to a green that slopped away and down wind as well. No putt from the front half of the green would stay on the back. But, if you played to the back, you had an easy putt or pitch up the hill to the flag, and you had 15 yards of short turf over the green.

Why did I think this was the perfect hole for the day? Because I knew everyone in our group could get to the back of the green with two shots. I also knew the better players (we had two scratches with us) would be confounded by the shot because they would drive it so far they’d have a 9 iron or wedge in. This is exactly the type of shot that confounds good players because they always think that because they drove it 330 and have a short club they should be able to make birdie. The problem is, this shot is all about trajectory and being able to bounce it in and have it just release over the ridge. A perfect shot would result in a 12-15 footer straight up hill. But, a high spinning short iron hit into the front half of the green had a good chance of checking and stopping, leading almost certainly to a bogey.

On this hole in these conditions, the pin was very fair because there was more then enough room to get into a position where you could get to the flag with your third shot. It would have been unfair if the area you needed to hit to was very small and hard to get to, or if there was a hazard over the green. It’s why I don’t think formulas work. Why I don’t think we should measure holes or courses one shot at a time. If a course allows the average player to connect the dots and it breaks a few rules along the way, then I say that’s creative design. I really believe great design is when the average player can still get around, but the good player is left with needing to hit “shots” instead of yardages. 

Getting good players to think about chipping a 7 iron from 150 while the 10 hdcp is happy to hit a running 4 iron/hybrid from 200 and I think you’ve got a good hole. Get ‘em to think like that on 4 or 5 holes and I think you’ve got a great course.

[Tom_Doak]

Don:

So, do you always set up a course to confound your opponents in the day's match?     I will be very careful about playing golf with you from here on out!

Of course, most architects [and most superintendents] do not get to set up their course knowing exactly who they are setting it up for.  It takes all types.  But, I was trying to do the same thing you are speaking of at High Pointe, at the 3rd and 8th holes, both long par-4's.

 At the third, the green is crowned at the end of an uphill approach, and I figured that would be easier for a guy coming in with a 4-wood [whose ball might run up the hill] than for a guy with an 8-iron [who might suck it back down the hill].  Sadly, that was the fairway where the fescue didn't take very well, and we wound up with a soft approach where the ball seldom ran up, even with a 4-wood.

At the eighth, I had a green with a low front section and then an abrupt tier that was 3-4 feet high.  It wasn't a hard hole with the pin up front, but when the flag was on the upper tier, and especially when the hole was downwind, the tier was just too small for someone to fly it up there and hold the green, even with an 8-iron, so the shot was to try and land the ball in front and have it run up the tier of the green -- impossible to do with a short iron in your hands.  That hole worked better than the third, but the low-handicappers never did like it very much!

[Ally Mcintosh]

I've thought about this concept a fair bit because I think it's a really, really good one.... Haven't had the right opportunity to put it in to practice yet but it's always in the back of my mind... Nice to hear how it's worked for Don & Tom...

[Jim Eder]

Don,

Thanks for your great write-up.  I love the thought process. Courses like this and set-ups like this make the game more interesting. Thanks for showing the process, I will use this to think even deeper about design etc.

[JESII]

Don,

I haven't been to Wolf Point but feel I can visualize the problems you describe and agree with every word you wrote.

It reminds me of a story from Bobby Jones time when, in the locker room/bar after a round somewhere, all the guys were bitching about an inaccessible hole location on one of the par 3's and Jones apparently said...sometimes you just have to hit a really good shot if you want to make a birdie...or something like that. In this instance, the 330 drive wouldn't have been the really good shot, the 9 iron the lends in the front and just trickles over the ridge would be...

[George Pazin]

A perfect example of the beauty of subtle design, thanks, Don. I fear many would walk away missing the point, thinking that it's simply tricked up, but ultimately this sort of thing is the pinnacle of golf design, imho.

Simple in philosophy, complex in practice. Looks easy, plays hard. Whatever you want to call it, it provides endless interest, unlike the black and white options preferred by so many.

Black & white < grayscale < full color.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - thanks.  It's interesting how many of the perennial features of good golf architecture apply here: i..e. wind, firm ground, a sloping green with a diagonal ridge, and tightly-mowed turf and green surrounds.  It reminds me of the theory that The Old Course is the right answer to any question ever asked on gca about gca.  I'm starting to think that the only real goal and the only real challenge of every architect is re-creating the features/essence of The Old Course on land and in places thousands of miles from St Andrews.

Peter

[JESII]

Don,

I don't understand your use of the term "designing for one shot at a time" in the title. How does your post discuss the pros or cons of the concept?

[Ben Sims]

There's something beautiful about designing a golf hole for eventualities and possibilities, rather than designing for one result.  X+Y=Z is boring.  (A+B)>(X+Y)=Z is much more interesting. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jim,
What I mean about designing one shot at a time is you don't take into consideration the shot before or after when you design. In my example, it would be very easy to conclude that it was unfair because you couldn't stop the ball near the hole if you were putting from the front of the green.

If I simply said, your ball is on the front of the green and the pin is in back and you can't keep the ball on the green if you putt toward the hole, you might say that is unfair. What is left out of that description is its actually not hard at all to get your ball past the pin on your approach so your left with a very simple uphill putt. I believe the severity of your next shot should be tied to the difficulty of your shot at hand. If I make it really easy to hit it to a spot that is favorable to score from, I think it completely fair to stymie you if you choose to get cute.

I think most try to use this principle when they design, but it is often lost at the putting green due to the "rules" we are expected to follow. Its why position in the fwy isn't all that important on most courses now. The greens tend to be flattish and receptive so even if your not in great position you can usually keep it on the green, and because we take great care to make sure our greens are fair, you can usually hit a putt near the hole.

Now imagine a green shaped like an upside down taco shell. Ridge right down the middle with a hard slope to the left, and to the right. Add in a nice wide fwy with small gathering bunkers scattered about and a right to left cross wind. Because the green is firm, you need to approach a right pin from the right, and a left pin from the left. If you caught out of position in the fwy, you can still get the ball to the proper side, but it will probably run to the edge of the green and leave a 20 -30 foot uphill putt. But, if your out of position and choose to get aggressive and get stuck on the wrong side, bogey is probably what you will score.

If you take that green and examine it alone, it would be deemed unfair because the slopes are too steep by modern specifications. But, the hole works. I know, because that is the 2nd at Wolf Point.  

[John Kirk]

I like this topic.

Wolf Point is a private course, and guests probably come in for one or two day at a time.  Therefore, it makes sense to set the course up for specific shots any given guest day.  However, if I were a member of this course, or fortunate enough to play it many times under the various typical wind conditions (south wind dominant, north wind secondary?), I would want the full variety of hole locations, regardless of wind direction and speed.

Another comment from the original example.  Don, could an astute first time player see from the fairway that the green slopes away severely, demanding a shot to the back of the green?  If it's not obvious, there's nothing wrong with that, just an advantage for the home team.

On the second example, the 2nd hole, with a strong right-to-left wind, wouldn't it always be best to drive to the left side of the fairway, using the wind to hold the second shot?

A close friend of mine (now a caddie at Bandon) and I have a joke - "There aren't many shotmakers left."  Here in Portland, Oregon, where courses are soft and the wind never blows, almost all of the good players tend not to play shots.  They hit all their shots the same, which may be the more successful way to score, but I sure like trying different shots.  What's the worst that can happen?

[Ben Sims]

John,

If you bail out left on #2 no matter which side of the "taco" that pin is on, then a shot to the right of the green will slope severely away to short grass, and you'll have to come in from over a greenside bunker.  Not to make this about Wolf instead of Don's OP, but I can't think of anywhere on the golf course where it's "always best to drive" anywhere.  Sounds like a cliche', it's not. 

I think a term for what Don is talking about is "golfing your ball."  Designing for "golfing your ball" is so much more than point A, point B, down and in.  It's thinking about how variables interact with one another. 

[John Kirk]

Ben,

Are you saying that there's no way to get the ball onto the correct side of the ridge (right side of the green) with an approach shot from anywhere?

If so, then that's too severe, isn't it?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ben,

Are you saying that there's no way to get the ball onto the correct side of the ridge (right side of the green) with an approach shot from anywhere?

If so, then that's too severe, isn't it?

John, no he's not saying that. You can get to either side from anywhere in the fwy, but it would take an exceptional shot to hit it close, especially if the pin is cut up near the ridge. If the hole is more out toward the edge of the green then its a easier, but you'll still have a hard time making par if you hit to the wrong side.

In your first post I'm not quite sure where you coming from with your first paragraph. We set the course up different every day. We certainly do not cut the same pins in the same conditions when ever we have guests. I just gave one example of a set up decision I made on one day at one hole. We often cut the pin on the front half as well and way up to the left and way down on the right as well. All require some thought with your approach or you could be left with being in a spot where it is very tough to get your third close.

You could certainly play out to the left on the 2nd, then get your approach to the right half of the green. But, your playing slightly uphill and in to the breeze over a fronting bunker and I've seen a lot of players under club. I always try and hit my drive to the side the flag is on so I can try and use the slope as a side board and get close. Its a much easier shot to get to the proper side and every once in a while make a birdie. Playing across the slope always brings the wrong side into play.

the 13th

2nd green looking R - L, photo doesn't really reveal how much slope is there

[Tim Gavrich]

But if it's not possible to putt a ball close to a back pin from the front of the green, how on earth is it going to be possible to get a ball any closer from the fairway, given that the hole plays firm and downwind?  It sounds like the only way to make a birdie, no matter what, is to hole a shot from a considerable distance away from the pin, most likely off the green.  That's 100% fine; it's just important to admit that that pin position makes birdie a largely unrealistic achievement.

How much green was there behind the cup as you cut it on that particular day?  Would it have been bad to move it a little farther from the tipping point on the green?

One of my alma mater's home courses, Vista Links in Buena Vista, VA, has a hole with a green sort of like this.  It was a ~150 yard par 3 with a ridge running basically perpendicularly across the middle of the green.  If the pin was short of the ridge, it was a relatively easy shot.  If it was on the back part of the green, the shot was more difficult but birdie was not impossible.  Sometimes, though, the greenskeeping staff would get cheeky and place a white-flagged pin on the downslope on the long side of the ridge.  My teammates thought it was unfair as they three-putted from the front half of the green, but I just found it a little odd, not necessarily in a positive way.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim, the pin was about 20 feet off the back edge. A perfect approach or putt would stop about 12-15 feet below the hole. Easy par/hard birdie. I guess if your used to tap in birdies that would be unrealisitc, but I'll take 20 footers straight uphill for birdie all day long.

The flag could have been moved anouther five feet closer to the back edge.

My point was a thoughtful play would leave a decent chance at holing the up hill putt since you could be bold and not worry about going way by, and certainly par was not that difficult. Its the guy who tried to hit it to a foot by just trickling over the ridge who could be in trouble if he didn't pull it off.

Its not supposed to be easy to birdie 495 yard par 4s. 

In your example, did your teammates 3 putt when they hit their approach over the ridge to the back pin?
My problem with that attitude from college players (my son is one so I know) is they think every pin is a green light special and then cry when they hit what they thought was the right shot only to see they are left with a very difficult approach putt or chip. Its why so many of them get beat by older ams who have learned to get around the course.

[John Kirk]

John,

If you bail out left on #2 no matter which side of the "taco" that pin is on, then a shot to the right of the green will slope severely away to short grass, and you'll have to come in from over a greenside bunker.  Not to make this about Wolf instead of Don's OP, but I can't think of anywhere on the golf course where it's "always best to drive" anywhere.  Sounds like a cliche', it's not. 

I was suggesting that approaching #2 from the left side is only better in a strong right-to-left crosswind, enabling the player to hold the ball into the wind.  If you approach from the right in a crosswind, I would think the ball is moving left hard by the time it hits the green.  Similarly, if the wind was moving left-to-right, an approach to the left side of the green might best be handled from the right side.

By the way, I enjoy holes where the best angle of approach is generally the same side of the fairway.  They are the exception rather than the rule.


"It’s why I don’t think formulas work. Why I don’t think we should measure holes or courses one shot at a time. If a course allows the average player to connect the dots and it breaks a few rules along the way, then I say that’s creative design."

--  Don M.

I did not read the original post carefully enough, and misinterpreted your intent, to an extent.  [emoticon of choice goes here]

I agree completely with your premise.  A great golf course should test a wide variety of skills, including the ability to play shots of varying trajectories, when the course setup dictates.  I find it more rewarding to execute shots with non-standard trajectories. 

Returning to the original pin position on the 495 yard hole, it will works best if the better player can see that the green falls off sharply in back.  Standard strategy suggests that a downwind shot is best handled with a high, full shot, and in this case, the best way to putt for birdie is to bounce it up there with a lower trajectory.

So college player and GCA veteran Tim Gavrich bombs driver, leaving 160 yards with a 15-20 mph downwind breeze.  He's probably deciding between 9-iron and pitching wedge.  Pitching wedge is the wrong choice, as it leaves him short of the ridge.  Maybe 9-iron ends up over the green.  That's OK, as he can make par from there.  If he decides to play a running shot, 8-iron to too lofted; a 6-iron or 7-iron will work better.  Still, he will have to judge a less than full swing exquisitely to have the uphill birdie putt.

It sounds as if the hole is set up very difficult that day, not an easy par and a very difficult birdie.  Once again, if Tim the college player can't see the falloff from the fairway and three-putts from the front, he will be pissed, but he would have no excuse the second time around.  Whether that is a good thing is debatable.  I like a built-in home course advantage, where inside knowledge is accumulated.



Last thing.  That picture is so beautiful.   It looks like the African savanna.  What are the oak-dotted grasslands in those parts called?  To use 40 year-old slang, that is really neat.

[Tim Gavrich]

Don--

If only I were used to tap-in birdies!  An uphill 20-footer is certainly acceptable on a 495 yard par 4.  I was just wondering aloud whether that was the best possible result one's approach shot could achieve, barring something like hitting the flagstick.  Since that appears to be the case, I guess we agree to disagree over the greatness of that sort of pin position.  I certainly don't hate it--I feel like I would have an advantage over a like-handicapped opponent on that hole because he would think it unfair and stupid--but I think that if a player has a shorter distance approach shot and plays an exquisite shot, the reward should be something like a 5-footer, rather than a 20-footer.

I absolutely think college players and pros have an excessive sense of entitlement when it comes to certain aspects of golf courses, but if the closest you can possibly get from the best possible approach spot with a short iron is something like 20 feet, then I don't think it's unfair to meditate on the pin position.  If you effectively eliminate a possible score from a hole, then it certainly becomes a weaker match play hole, does it not?

Regardless, Wolf Point looks incredible.  It's a shame so relatively few courses have that level of elasticity or thoughtfulness of design.

[John Kirk]

Funny, Tim.  We independently used the word "exquisite" to describe an excellent shot.  Cool.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim,
If you were to hit the perfect shot with some spin, you could stop closer, after all the ball stopped at the hole from below so not every thing rolls past 20 feet.
But, just don't complain when you miss that perfect spot by 6 feet short and now your putting down the hood of a car. Much smarter play is making sure you get to the hole. I still don't understand how leaving a high likely hood of a 15-20 foot up hill birdie putt is eliminating a possible score, though.


One other thing, on this green with that pin, you'd much rather be 20 feet below the hole then 5 foot to the side or above!

[jeffwarne]

Don--

If only I were used to tap-in birdies!  An uphill 20-footer is certainly acceptable on a 495 yard par 4.  I was just wondering aloud whether that was the best possible result one's approach shot could achieve, barring something like hitting the flagstick.  Since that appears to be the case, I guess we agree to disagree over the greatness of that sort of pin position.  I certainly don't hate it--I feel like I would have an advantage over a like-handicapped opponent on that hole because he would think it unfair and stupid--but I think that if a player has a shorter distance approach shot and plays an exquisite shot, the reward should be something like a 5-footer, rather than a 20-footer.

I absolutely think college players and pros have an excessive sense of entitlement when it comes to certain aspects of golf courses, but if the closest you can possibly get from the best possible approach spot with a short iron is something like 20 feet, then I don't think it's unfair to meditate on the pin position.  If you effectively eliminate a possible score from a hole, then it certainly becomes a weaker match play hole, does it not?

Regardless, Wolf Point looks incredible.  It's a shame so relatively few courses have that level of elasticity or thoughtfulness of design.

Tim,
a hole/pin placement such as this tests something rarely seen anymore in golf.
Not your ability to get close on the particular shot at hand, but your ability to get close on the NEXT shot.
(I think Tom Doak commented on playing over the original Redan at North Berwick-which is exactly what I did by accident the first time I played it for an easy par)

As golfers we are are spoon fed that any green we can reach we are entitled to have an opprotunity to get close, thus eliminating the crucial strategy of the hole/pin position itself.
the thoughtful player is thinking about the shot after the one he's playing, not unlike the strategies one might employ on a shortishdownwind par 5 on a links course, or the 17th at TOC.

The player who is seduced into attempting the "perfect" shot, suffers much more often than the one who attempts the "right" shot-which is ironically much easier to execute.

[Tim Gavrich]

Very interesting indeed.  I suppose I'm having a skeptical reaction to this thread because I've never really played a hole like the one described.  The hole at Vista Links is close, I suppose, but they only positioned the pin like that a small handful of times and it was a par 3.

Don, when you set the hole location that way, how did the higher-handicap players do on the hole relative to the scratch players?  Was it a stroke hole in the match (assuming they played a match)?  Did it serve as an equalizer?

[John Kirk]

The ground has to be firm enough to give a reasonable chance of bouncing the ball up the ridge and over.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sitting in an airport and thinking about this topic, Ive actually been thinking about it for the last week.
When did it become the norm in golf that a player should always be able to get to the hole? I know we design holes where the degree of difficulty in getting to the hole depends on the previous shot. But what's wrong with the rare hole where you just can't get close unless something miraculous happens? But where you leave your approach has great bearing on the difficulty of the next shot? There is still a target(s) and how you execute in getting to the target matters, but the best target is not the hole.  Was this ever a part of golf? If so, has it been lost due a focus on stroke play? 

[Tom_Doak]

Sitting in an airport and thinking about this topic, Ive actually been thinking about it for the last week.
When did it become the norm in golf that a player should always be able to get to the hole? I know we design holes where the degree of difficulty in getting to the hole depends on the previous shot. But what's wrong with the rare hole where you just can't get close unless something miraculous happens? But where you leave your approach has great bearing on the difficulty of the next shot? There is still a target(s) and how you execute in getting to the target matters, but the best target is not the hole.  Was this ever a part of golf? If so, has it been lost due a focus on stroke play? 

Don:

The question is well put.

Since I lived in Scotland, I've always believed that it's okay for the golfer to encounter shots where it's impossible to get close to the hole.  That's frequently the case on the links, when the wind is blowing hard:

1.  Even the strongest player may not be able to carry a bunker from the tee, even if it's 220 yards in the air;
2.  If you're approaching a pin tucked closely behind a bunker, and playing downwind, there is just no way to stop the ball below the hole, unless you can play it AROUND the bunker;
3.  You can be hard up against the face of a revetted bunker, and have to play away from the hole;
4.  If you've short-sided yourself on a tilted green and the wind is behind you, there's no way to get your pitch or chip shot to stop very close to the hole.

I'm sure I could think of more examples if I took another five minutes, but you get the drift.

Now, here's how Americans have tried to eliminate all of these unfairnesses:

1.  Build multiple tees, so you can move the markers up when the wind is strong;
2.  Over-water the greens so that somebody can stop their shot;
3.  Make the bunker faces benign and make sure to pay for "good" sand so that a good player can always get close;
4.  Don't build a green with any real slope.

I think you are right, in that a lot of the difference in viewpoints is the difference between a match play mentality and a stroke play mentality.  But it could also be that some of the difference is cultural ... Americans tend to think that every man can be President, while the Scots think that life on earth is meant to be punishing.  [Well, not all of them, but far too many.]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()