Penalty Strokes = Bad Architecture

[Jason Topp]

I started mulling over this question in the shower this morning and am not sure whether I agree or disagree.

On one hand,  one of the reasons I enjoy Golden Age courses and Links golf is that penalty strokes are pretty rare.  The heart of the game is teeing off and hitting the ball until you get it in the hole or a concession occurs in match play.  Most of the courses I enjoy playing time and time again do not involve much in the way of threatened penalty strokes.  It is much more pleasurable to attempt a shot off the beach at North Berwick or Cabo del Sol, than take a drop on a similarly placed hazard on a Florida course. 

On the other hand, many of the unquestioned great holes in golf involve the threat of penalty strokes

- 12 and 13 at Augusta National;
- 8 at Pebble Beach
- 17 at The Old Course

I also acknowledge that oftentimes out of bounds and water hazards are unavoidable due to environmental restrictions. 

Nonetheless, as a general rule in the Spirit of Mackenzies' 13 principles (which he violated in some fashion on most courses he built), I think the principle stands.

I thought this idea might spark an interesting debate.  Let me know your thoughts.         

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jason, there are a few kind of penalty strokes that a bother me.  Out of bounds is one.  There are too many of them on some courses in golf communities.  Sometimes they penalize a shot that is only marginally bad.  There is one course I play where the fairway is about 25 yards wide with a lake on the left and OB on the right.  No one likes the hole. 
As a general rule I would like the option to play my next shot without taking a penalty stroke. That said, water and OB can make a hole exciting. The holes you cite would not be nearly as good with out the threat of a penalty shot.  The first time I hit my second shot 8 at Pebble and hit the tee shot at 17 on the old course my heart was pumping pretty hard. 
Some courses just have too much a good thing.

[Jason Connor]

Jason: I completely agree with you. And maybe that's the difference in a great hole, and a great course.

Though on 13 at Augusta, you can probably hit many balls in Rae's creek.

[Greg Tallman]

Jason,

I would generally agree however after having my heart ripped out on #17 on The Ocean Course I cannot. I hit it about 12 feet and my opponent hits it to the right on the beach but in firm sand from the recent tides... I lost the hole. Beach should be OB!

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

I would generally agree however after having my heart ripped out on #17 on The Ocean Course I cannot. I hit it about 12 feet and my opponent hits it to the right on the beach but in firm sand from the recent tides... I lost the hole. Beach should be OB!

Greg - your problem is that you hit the ball solid.  That is usually not a problem for me.

[Dan Kelly]

God made showers for singing, not for mulling golf-course architecture!

I disagree with your general theory -- though I'm sympathetic to the view that courses with too-tight OB and flanking and forced-carry hazards hole after hole are not much fun to play.

Maybe if I were thinking about it in the shower, I'd have a different view of things!

[Alex Miller]

Penalty Strokes in penal architecture bother me, but we really don't see that in golden age courses.

There are huge bail outs at 17 at TOC, 13 at ANGC (12 is an exception). If the architect gives a more than reasonable option of playing away from the hazard or O.B., I think that is a great way to incorporate it into a golf hole. Otherwise it's just punishment for punishment's sake.

[Brent Hutto]

I'm with Alex, if there's a penalty stroke lurking for trying and failing to gain an advantage with a difficult shot that's fair in my book. If there is a penalty stroke lurking regardless of how you choose to play the hole that's a drawback. Doesn't mean it disqualifies a course from being good or even great. But it's a drawback. And a dozen or so of those a round makes for a course I'd not care to visit more than once.

[Jason Topp]

God made showers for singing, not for mulling golf-course architecture!

Not a pretty picture in either event.

[Matt MacIver]

I don’t care for bowling – there’s no recovery from the gutter.  Kinda like a tree-lined fairway with 5 inch rough. 

I like pool – different shot lengths and angles on every shot, and a bad shot may or may not ruin your round, and might even go in another pocket!

I like darts – while the tee shot remains the same, a slight miss can still help you, until late in the round (putting) when you need to be deadly accurate. 

Is any of this relevant? 

[Sean_A]

Penalty strokes doesn't equal bad architecture - there are far too many wonderful holes made so by the threat of penalty strokes for this to be true. I think too many opportunities for penalty strokes equals bad architecture.  

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Penalty strokes doesn't equal bad architecture - there are far too many wonderful holes made so by the threat of penalty strokes for this to be true. I think too many opportunities for penalty strokes equals bad architecture.  

Agreed.

I've long detested out of bounds, but several courses in the UK have helped me look at it more favorably.  I still don't like OOB if it's only there as a penalty, but when there is plenty of room to play away yet temptation draws you near - that can be great architecture.

[Philippe Binette]

as long as the penalty stroke remains a threat and not a choice between 2 evils.

when there a lake on the left of the tee... you don't need to put bunkers right (way too often seen in modern architecture)

take a look at TPC Sawgrass, it's a severe course... but there are no tee shots where there is a hazard (lake or bunker) on both sides of the fairway.

it's all about a choosing your line depending on your courage and ability

[Steve Wilson]

 
Greg,

You say "I hit it about 12 feet and my opponent hits it to the right on the beach."  Generally when I ony hit the ball twelve feet, I generallyl don't care where my opponents ball is.

On a serious note though, how about Bruce Irvin?
 

[Mark Pearce]

The fact that so many of the greatest holes in golf feature the possibility of a penalty shot would suggest that the principal does not stand.  At TOC it's not just 17 but, even more so, 16 that is made great by the OOB.  Similarly, 4 at Woking isn't anything to write home about without OOB on the right, so close to the prefered DZ.  There are so many.  1 at Prestwick, 17 and 18 at Carnoustie, 11 and 18 at Troon, 18 at NBWL, 15, 16 and 17 at CPC, 6, 7, 8 and 9 at Pebble Beach.  The list goes on.

[BCrosby]

The fact that so many of the greatest holes in golf feature the possibility of a penalty shot would suggest that the principal does not stand.  At TOC it's not just 17 but, even more so, 16 that is made great by the OOB.  Similarly, 4 at Woking isn't anything to write home about without OOB on the right, so close to the prefered DZ.  There are so many.  1 at Prestwick, 17 and 18 at Carnoustie, 11 and 18 at Troon, 18 at NBWL, 15, 16 and 17 at CPC, 6, 7, 8 and 9 at Pebble Beach.  The list goes on.

True to a degree, but what makes those holes so good isn't the simple existence of penalty shots, it's the relationship between the de jure penalties and the de facto penalties prsented by  the physical features of the hole.

There are lots of dull holes in Florida, for example, with water along the length of the hole. Among the things that make them dull is that they don't have, for example, a c/l bunker like the 4th at Woking. Unlike the 4th at Woking they don't ask the player an interesting question.

Bob    

[Melvyn Morrow]

Penalty Strokes = Bad Architecture > Ballocks, what about poor skill on behalf for the golfer because OOB is no more than a hazard like a bunker, burn, stone wall etc.  This is the result on golf losing its challenge and players crying wolf because it makes them have to concentrate and think through the shot and dynamics of the Hole. Welcome to the real world of Golf that is walking & THINKING.

Bad Architecture relates to things like Island Greens which leaves golfers no real options, the thinking is removed, it’s simple straight hitting for beginners.

[Mark Pearce]

Bob,

You're right, of course.  It isn't the OOB or water that makes a hole great, it is the interaaction of that hazard with the rest of the architecture of the hole.  Enough evidence, I think, though, to rebut Jason's theory.  Just as OOB or water doesn't make a hole good, nor does it neccesarily make it bad.

[Jim Sherma]

Bob - well stated.

It's the question that's being asked of the golfer that's important. My least favorite holes are penalty-shot holes that have no strategic bail out, therefore making for no decision, only execution. Examples of this are courses in the Northeast that are faux-links with "native" areas lining both sides of the fairway. This can make for a very poor experience if the playing corridors are not wide enough. Essentially you have de facto OOB on both sides of most fairways for the entire round when the gunch is up. Royal Manchester outside of York, PA is very penal like this as it has narrow corridors and not much rough between the fairway edges and the gunch. Hershey Links is similar but the corridors are wide enough that you have to be really crooked to be in the gunch. Difficulty certainly does not equal interesting.

[Jerry Kluger]

To paraphrase Dr. Mackenzie: Hazards should be there not to penalize the golfer but to make the hole more interesting.  So penalty strokes should not be the reason for the hazard rather they should be the result of challenging an interesting feature of the hole. 12 and 13 at Augusta are perfect examples of the hole's design features which give you the option to challenge the hazard or take a safer route.  Sometimes it can be a very difficult choice but it is still there.  It is when you have no options that the hazard becomes questionable.

I would say that the 17th at Sawgrass is a great hole for a championship tournament but it is questionable architecture.

[Phil McDade]

Bob - well stated.

It's the question that's being asked of the golfer that's important. My least favorite holes are penalty-shot holes that have no strategic bail out, therefore making for no decision, only execution. Examples of this are courses in the Northeast that are faux-links with "native" areas lining both sides of the fairway. This can make for a very poor experience if the playing corridors are not wide enough. Essentially you have de facto OOB on both sides of most fairways for the entire round when the gunch is up. Royal Manchester outside of York, PA is very penal like this as it has narrow corridors and not much rough between the fairway edges and the gunch. Hershey Links is similar but the corridors are wide enough that you have to be really crooked to be in the gunch. Difficulty certainly does not equal interesting.

On the other hand.....

One of the funniest lines I've read here on GCA was written several years ago by ---- Sweeney? Mayday Malone? One of the East Coast/New England guys -- who played a course that included a long par 4 or 5 with an initial carry over acres of crap just to reach the fairway off the tee. And the line went something like this (paraphrasing): "Options? You want options? Here's your option -- carry a tee shot 250 yards over this crap or you're re-teeing!"

Which, to me, is a blunt way of saying -- maybe demanding, one-dimensional play has a place on the course. Not all 18 holes, and from my perspective -- much in line with Jason's original premise -- only once or twice a round. But sometimes the biggest thrill on a golf course can come from executing a demanding shot when there is no other choice but to do so. I still recall a shot I took -- years ago, when first learning the game --that demanded a 3-iron at a par 3 with a pond fronting the entire green (and playing with a group of friends who -- if I'd bailed out and laid up on a par 3 -- would never let me forget it). I managed to hit the green with about two feet to spare. A shot I can still recall, many years later.

[Brent Hutto]

I managed to hit the green with about two feet to spare. A shot I can still recall, many years later.

And better yet, no memory at all of the three balls you hit before that one! 

[Kalen Braley]

Fully agreed.

OB and penalty strokes are found in plentiful fashion on this hole.  Its gotta be bad architecture.

[Jason Topp]

A rebuttal:

Most of the cited examples are examples of wonderful design that relate to extraordinary features existing on a particular location.  I am of course suppportive of incorporating such features into a design if necessary.  However, if those features can be incorporated in a way that allows for the possibility of a recovery shot, it creates far more interest.  I would suggest that the ocean is a much more interesting hazard if there is a possibility of hitting a recovery shot from the beach.  I would argue that the road on the 17th at St. Andrews creates far more interest than the stationmaster's garden.  The stream in front of the 13th green at Augusta National is a more interesting hazard if there is a possibility of a recovery shot. 

A hazard containing the possibility of a recovery shot invites more agressive play.  For example, when I play a typical par three over a pond, I always try and hit it to the back of the green.  The penalty for hitting it in the water is too great otherwise.  If the par three is over a bunker or a waste area, I may play more agressively, figuring I can try some sort of shot if I fail.  The same equation basically exists for par fours and fives involving ponds.

A course without penalty strokes is not necessarily an easier course.  My impression is that penalty strokes are pretty rare at Oakmont (not sure about the ditches) but it is widely reputed as one of the most difficult courses in the world.   

I find that I enjoy the game more on well designed courses where the score consists of shots hit rather than penalties incurred.  Many great golf courses provide this sort of experience.   


I am not suiggesting penalty stokes should never be included in a course.  I do suggest they should be avoided unless there is a compelling reason to include them.

[George Pazin]

I think I understand what Jason feels, and I'll say I agree with him.

I like this statement "And maybe that's the difference in a great hole, and a great course." Well said, Jason C.

On the occasional hole, it's fine. As a continuing feature on a course, well, that's a course I will generally avoid. There are of course exceptions that prove the rule, but those are truly exceptions. As a general rule, I really prefer to play courses where the likelihood of a penalty stroke is relatively low.