Aggressive - conservative Conservative – aggressive

[Don_Mahaffey]

In recent threads there has been discussion about how best to learn architecture and also some discussion about a particular hole from a course that shall remain nameless.

In the “learning” thread, it was written that watching other play was critical to really learning about golf architecture. I recounted about how I had spent a few hours observing play at the road hole on my first afternoon in St. Andrews. It’s a really hard hole and was eating the tourists alive.

The folks who seemed to play the hole correctly took aggressive lines off the tee (right), followed by a conservative approach (short, right of bunker). This method was clearly superior to the conservative tee shot (left) followed by an aggressive approach, or even conservative-conservative or aggressive-aggressive.

I was there just three weeks prior to the 2000 open, so they were growing rough out to the left which made it very hard to control either a conservative or aggressive play. Even after a good aggressive drive, the players who thought 3 was a possibility seemed to spend more time in the bunker, or on the road.

Does a par 4 need this combination to be great? If a hole can be played well with a conservative-conservative approach, is it too simple? If it requires aggressive-aggressive, is it to far out of reach for most.

Lastly, is the added thinking element of knowing when you have to push and when to back off , the real difference between good and great?

[Randy Thompson]

Don,
I can tell you from my observation watching the professional level, YES, its seems to me the best are seperated on the putting surface but also when to attack and go for the flag stick and birde, and when to play smart and go for the middle of the green and accept par. Archtiects in general are considering this more and more in their designs and incorporating this options through thoughtful, strategic greens and greens surroundings and looking to punish an aggressive off line shot.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Randy,
I understand that, but its the sequencing of conservative - aggressive, aggressive - conservative that I find interesting.  It seemed to me at the road, you HAD to play aggressive with your tee shot just to be in position to then realistically play a conservative approach in hope of a decent score. I find that to be a whole lot different then the normal risk-reward equation we talk about.

[Bill_McBride]

Randy,
I understand that, but its the sequencing of conservative - aggressive, aggressive - conservative that I find interesting.  It seemed to me at the road, you HAD to play aggressive with your tee shot just to be in position to then realistically play a conservative approach in hope of a decent score. I find that to be a whole lot different then the normal risk-reward equation we talk about.

Don, isn't that what makes the Road Hole so uniquely difficult?   The standard risk/reward equation is risky tee shot = reward in the form of an easier second shot.   At the Road Hole - at least since the course set up calls for deep rough in the tee shot bailout zone - there are NO easy shots on the hole!

This happens elsewhere on the course, most notably left of the Principal's Nose on 16, which has always been the safe line but brings Wig Bunker into play at the green.   Now the play is pretty much forced to the right between the bunker and OB, a line Nicklaus called "strictly for amateurs."

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - really neat thread and way to approach the subject. It seems to me that one of the beauties of the game is that, standing on a tee, all golfers are equal in this sense: all can choose to "self-define", i.e. all can make a basic/fundamental choice as to how they judge their talents/skills and what is for them a realistic and/or acceptable goal for the golf hole they are about to play. But, if a golf hole is one that clearly asks for an aggresive-aggressive / conservative-conservative approach, it then effectively negates a golfer's ability to self-define.  Furthermore, since this self-definition and judgement is actually a continual process (as adjustments have to be made based on the actual results of the first/second shots), it seems to me that helping the lesser-skilled player to self-define himself as just that, and be able to play conservatively on his approach shot, makes a lot of sense. I don't know if I've really understood your question or if I've all stayed on point, but that's what occurs to me.  I think this "self-definition" is really at the heart and root of what we usually discuss in terms of having options.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I like your concept of aggressive vs conservative.

I have heard architects design holes based on the three shots (drive, approach, first putt) being some blend of hard, average and easy.  They use it as some sort of test on the overall difficulty of the hole, thinking if you have a hard drive and approach, the reward ought to be a fairly easy putt.  Ditto, if a par 5 is fairly easy to reach in two, then maybe the putt should be harder.

In general, I would think most archies would think that a conservative-conservative play should give you a 50-50% chance of par and bogey, and no chance (save chip in) for birdie.

The thing about the conservative play at the Road Hole is that its still dangerous with OB right and you STILL need to get right to avoid the Road Hole bunker.  So, in this case, conservative-conservative probably puts a golfer in position to make probably make bogey, with a chance of double bogey.  The chance of par goes down a lot from 50% from short left of the green.  In other words, the lay up shot is pretty penal with the Road right and RH bunker left.  Getting to prime position with a layup ain't easy, is it?

So, is that great design, or something reserved for some unique (and in this case historic) holes?  Just sort of noodling out loud on how hard or easy the bail out safe play should be.

Certainly Mac at the Lido competition, and other GA guys in writing (up to Jones) didn't generally challenge the short hitter taking the optional route on the second all that much did they?  They would have to play to the open side of the green, missing one green side bunker, just like those who played their tee shot to that side of the fw do.  Any bunker on the safe side would tend to be nearer the back.

For most par 4 holes, and for those who can reach them, I generally think of the middle of the green as the conservative approach play vs aiming for a tucked pin.  Seems plenty difficult enough in most cases.  There are exceptions, of course.

[Jim Sherma]

Yes - a sense of needing a sense of aggression shot on at least one of the shots is what makes a par-4 of continuing interest. Watching tourists on the road hole might not be the best place to watch this however. I put a 6-iron on from 175 in the left rough and made par from 20-feet my one time playing there. I must admit that I was going to swing at the green assuming I had a lie, which I did, and wanted to challenge the hole, full well knowing that I was bringing bigger numbers into play than the conservative second shot options short right or pin high left. If I knew that I would be playing the hole repeartedly than expected score value would play a bigger role as opposed to the singular experience of attempting the shot. I am sure that guests at Cypress Point make bad decieions on 16 all the time based on this line of thinking.

More generally, the holes that annoy me are ones where the conservative play option is poorly executed by the architect effectively making the aggressive play the only real option. #4 at Iron Valley (PB Dye) outside of Lebanon, PA is one such hole - it's a reachable par 5 (therefore slightly off-topic but the best example that I can come up with off the top of my head) where the lay up leaves you a wedge with the ball well above your feet and the ground is usually very soft, definitely not a comfortable shot for me. I always end up banging at the green because there is no alternative in my mind. One of the things that makes the road-hole great, at least given normal playing conditions, is that both aggressive and conservatoive plays can be chosen on each shot. Agree that left of the principal's nose on 16 needs to be cut back down, although when I played it the rough was very manageable over there.

[Bill_Yates]

Don
Great thread.  

Isn't what you are describing what we typically call "strategy?"  You know, going for it, laying up to the proper approach angle or a small flat area of the fairway.  Interestingly, along with actually being able to pull off the strategic shot you planned, you also have to have played/studied/discovered the subtle architectural elements of each hole in order to even know the strategic choices you have.

I believe that is precisely why we love golf and golf course architecture.  And, I feel that what makes the great courses "great" is that they all have such subtleties and reveal them to us slowly.

[John Foley]

Don,

Wouldn't a conservative tee shot + a conservative approach + some good short game play (good lag / good chip / good putt) allow the player to walk away from a tough or challenging hole with the feeling that he got out of there unscathed or that he stole something there?

I would think in this play the golfers ability to stay within his game yet take what the architect gave him as options + some good execution revealed some excellence in the design.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bumping back up.  I don't know for certain, but it feels like there is much to be discussed here (even if I can't see it myself).

Peter

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don,

Wouldn't a conservative tee shot + a conservative approach + some good short game play (good lag / good chip / good putt) allow the player to walk away from a tough or challenging hole with the feeling that he got out of there unscathed or that he stole something there?

I would think in this play the golfers ability to stay within his game yet take what the architect gave him as options + some good execution revealed some excellence in the design.

John, yes, that approach works on difficult holes, but does it work on great holes? At the road, a conservative drive means a very tough second, whether your laying up or not, since the proper lay up area is small. I saw plenty of drives out to the left followed by bumps up the fwy to 30-50 yards from the green with the bunker between golfer and flag. That shot will make you grip it tight.
My premise is, if you want to score at the road hole, you have to be aggressive off the tee. You might pull it off by laying back or out to the left, but I don't think the law of averages is in your favor.

How many holes do you play an aggressive tee shot just to get into position to hit a conservative (lay up) approach?

[Brett_Morrissy]

Don,
Also compliments on an interesting angle of design for a P4.

...to you first post, I think the C-C approach should offer chance of a regulation par, very outside chance of a birdie (chip in - hole long putt) and a makeable bogey, whereas the A-A approach, should yield definite birdie opportunity, and straighforward regulation par - BUT - this is all relevant to the length/difficulty of the hole in question. I would imagine that 'most', (not the top 10%) of golfers would happily walk off the hardest hole on a course with a bogey, and try and make birdie down the last.
The 8th hole at Barnbougle Dunes is terribly difficult P4 for those 90% who dont smash it, rarest of rare pars would a C-C approach find, becuase the 3rd shot is blind to the surface, and sometimes the flag. So, to beat this great hole, A-A is the only way to make birdie IMHO, for most golfers, and a combination may yield a par or bogey - again, take the a bogey/par on the beast and try and get it back on either of the next two holes.

Does a P4 need this element to be great?

I think this gets into uncertain territory when the length of the hole is considered. There are some short P4s on Kyle's latest thread, that no matter what strategy you employ on any of these holes, but specifically the first and last ones, it will not make one little difference to the successfully overcoming the hole - so IMHO - this for me confirms there status as 'not great' examples of a short P4.

Now, if we take either 8 or 9 at CPC, both have the options available for any combo of C-C/A-A, and on both, given perfect execution, A-A should still lead the lower score.

So, for me, this lies at the heart of a great and strategic hole, where the golfer makes his way appropriately connected to his state of mind, super aggresive every hole, maynot always reward and can possibly throw you off your game, super conservative will not always reward with a regulation round, (as the golf gods all visit us each time we play) throwing you off your round - and certainly this must be an objective of the design, to unsettle, challenge, etc  YES, a P4 will need this element, but it must offer the reward for the best execution of these approached for the lowest score.

[Sean_A]

Don,

Wouldn't a conservative tee shot + a conservative approach + some good short game play (good lag / good chip / good putt) allow the player to walk away from a tough or challenging hole with the feeling that he got out of there unscathed or that he stole something there?

I would think in this play the golfers ability to stay within his game yet take what the architect gave him as options + some good execution revealed some excellence in the design.

John, yes, that approach works on difficult holes, but does it work on great holes? At the road, a conservative drive means a very tough second, whether your laying up or not, since the proper lay up area is small. I saw plenty of drives out to the left followed by bumps up the fwy to 30-50 yards from the green with the bunker between golfer and flag. That shot will make you grip it tight.
My premise is, if you want to score at the road hole, you have to be aggressive off the tee. You might pull it off by laying back or out to the left, but I don't think the law of averages is in your favor.

How many holes do you play an aggressive tee shot just to get into position to hit a conservative (lay up) approach?

Don

Do you think that the conservative route essentially means the player will have to hit two other great shots to earn par even if that second shot is conservative?  It seems to me that we have to consider that playing conservatively can be great golf.  I know we tend to visualize the aggressive play which is pulled off as great shot making, but why can't a conservative shot to a perfect position be a great shot?  Isn't this at least one of the cornerstones of thinking golf? 

I can definitely see hitting an aggressive shot because one wants the option of the next being either aggressive or conservative.  I can also being aggressive off the tee because one is more comfortable hitting the next aggressive shot compared to hitting two conservative shots - the lesser of two evils sort of thing or even just a temperment sort of thing.

BTW - imagine how much more difficult the lay-up on TOC's 17th would be if there was short grass short and right of the green. 

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Don,

Very interesting topic.  As an average length hitter whose been in that left rough on 17,  I agree completely with your premise.  Sounds like you were watching me play the hole.  You could drop a bucket of balls 30-50 yards short of that green and not get down in 2 more than once or twice...

[John Kirk]

I thought of the 14th hole at Bandon Trails.

I like to play the hole conservatively off the tee, and if I have a flat lie and a full wedge, I will play aggressively to almost every pin position on the second shot.  Just hope for the best, but be aggressive.

If one were to play aggressively off the tee, and succeed, one might be afforded the option of a conservative second shot, away from the hole, but close enough to make par.

[Jud_T]

I'd say #13 at Kingsley falls into this category.  It's an uphill par 4 which plays 285 from the tips.   The tempting play is to hit driver and try to get it on or close to the green, but this often leaves you with a very awkward pitch shot, particularly if the pin is on the upper tier.  Many are better off playing conservatively off the tee and leaving a full wedge shot that one can be aggressive with as pinpoint accuracy is needed on the approach to avoid a potential 3 putt or worse...

[Ian Andrew]

I pondered this one for a while. I really enjoy holes where a super aggressive line unlocks multiple options on the approach. Safe play dictates a tough as nails approach whereas aggressive play from the tee provides opportunity. There's a tremendous excitement to playing these holes. Even when you succeed on the first shot, you still have the excitement of needing to make the next one.

I love the 5th at Merion where the only way to really attack it is to take a tight line along the creek. The reward is the ability to “use” the slope on the right to feed the ball into the green, although from this position you can also take dead aim if you dare. I find I tend to gravitate to these types of holes as the ones that stick with me as the most fun to play.

Tee shot


Approach Shot

[John Kirk]

I played the Road Hole once, from about 420 yards.  I aimed on the aggressive line, but pulled my drive int the left rough.  I had about 160 to the center of the green, and everything said low easy draw, trying to roll it up the front bank.  I had 5-iron in my hand, but switched to a 6-iron.  I executed the shot perfectly, but I should have stayed with the 5-iron.  It rolled halfway up the hill, then back down, a bit behind the Road bunker.  At that point, I suggested to my caddie I thought I could use the slope to putt the ball around the bunker to the back left pin.  He said, "You'll do nothing of the sort.", and instructed me to putt way right.  I listened this time, and put it 40 feet away.  I made a great first putt, and made the four footer coming back for bogey.     

[Don_Mahaffey]

Bumping...

I still believe that a hole can not be great if the player can just be conservative from start to finish. I'm less concerned about the order...conservative-aggressive-conservative or visa verse. Even if you have a long tough par 4, if the player decides to go conservative off the tee, conservative on the approach, shouldn't the green contours require some aggression, some need to take on challenges, some need to use your head, your skill, and test your nerves?
I think this is why I hate the long par 4 but really easy green method of par 4 design.

There were some holes at Streamsong Red which I felt failed this test. Make no mistake, they were pretty, and they were well built and highly functional, but they were not a good test of golf in my eyes. Hit it as far as you can off the tee, hit it as close as you can to the green, bump something up there and hope to make the putt.

I know in many circles that's good golf design, but if you make the green easy for the short hitter to chip, what chance does he have against the long hitter who is pin high? The short hitters only chance is if you require some aggression, some balls, on the short shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

It's an interesting question.

But, I don't think the answer lies with theoretical answers.

I think the answer is on the golf course and solely dependent upon how well or poorly the golfer is striking the ball on that particular day.

In the NGLA Pro-Shop, CBM's schematic, revealing alternative playing paths, hangs for all to see.
It used to be hidden in a hallway in the basement.

That schematic reveals aggressive and conservative lines of play.
For simplicity lets call one an aggressive  "par" path and the other a conservative "bogey" path.

Certain days I'd almost universally take the par path, other days, the more conservative bogey path.

What were the deciding factors ?

How I felt that day
How I hit the ball on the practice range prior to play
How I putted before the round
Was the round a tournament round
Was it match or medal play ?

The dilemma you posed greets yo on the very first tee.

TEPaul would always hit an iron to the fairway bowl on the right, leaving a blind, difficult, but relatively short wedge or 9-iron into the green.

I almost always hit driver at the left corner of front right bunker, trying to draw it, leaving me an easier short run-up or L-wedge into the green.

In match play I might aim a little further left.
In the Medal play qualifier, I might take a 3-wood or 2-3 iron to the right side fairway bowl, but that decision would be dependent upon how much sleep I had the night before and how I fared on the range.

So I don't think there's a universal answer, rather a situational answer.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat,
But the theory still applies at Nationional #1, a very well designed hole. How aggressive you need to be on your approach is directly proportional to how aggressive you were on your drive. TEPaul chooses to play the hole conservative - aggressive, probably because he has more faith in hitting a nine iron on the green then opening the day with an aggressive drive. You choose to be more aggressive on the drive because you have faith in your ability to start the day off with a good drive, and, I think, you know how difficult the approach can be if you lay back. And what I mean as difficult is on TEPaul's approach, he has to make an aggressive swing even if aiming to the fat of the green, he has to be committed to the shot. If there was less danger on and around that green, then laying back on a hole that length would be common place. I believe you make the aggressive drive because you feel that is the better way, playing the hole in an aggressive-conservative order.

I think its an interesting way to look at golf courses and golf holes. And I think if you have two levels of players, and the hole can be competitively contested when they can play the aggressive - conservative order that best suits them, then might have good golf design.