Shot value and a player's skill level

[Tommy Williamsen]

This is Golf Digest’s definition of shot value:
“How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?
A great course poses different strategies from hole to hole and requires a good player to have all the shots, including length when needed, accuracy on occasion and touch around greens.”

Donald Ross wrote, "It's fairly easy to build a very difficult course and it's fairly easy to build a very easy course but it isn't easy to build a course that accommodates everyone well."

Does the definition of shot value depend on the ability of the player? Or is it the same regardless of the player’s skill level?

[John Kavanaugh]

“How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?

I've never met a double digit handicap, outside of a member guest, that has three skill sets.  This only makes sense for the skilled player which is supposed to be a criteria to rate for Golf Digest.  This is why Golfweek only requires the ability to walk and observe.  In the park, that is.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It seems to me that not only does the skill level make a difference but the distance a player hits it impacts shot value.  The fourth hole at Four Streams is a 450 yard par four from the second tee.  It dog legs left.  Twenty yards in front of the green are two deep bunkers. They are on the left side of the fairway.  To the right of the bunkers is a slope that if a lower runner flies into will be graciously escorted to the green.  Very seldom can I fly the ball all the way to the hole.  In recent years I have used the slope to gather the ball onto the green.  Some guys I play with don't even know that option.  They haven't needed it.  My best friend knows that option but he can't even reach it with his best two shots.
Shot value, it seems to me, varies depending on the skill level of the player on many many holes.
Designing a hole that tests the has good shot values for different skill levels is a pretty difficult thing.  The best courses seem to do it best.

[Garland Bayley]

It seems to me that not only does the skill level make a difference but the distance a player hits it impacts shot value.  The fourth hole at Four Streams is a 450 yard par four from the second tee.  It dog legs left.  Twenty yards in front of the green are two deep bunkers. They are on the left side of the fairway.  To the right of the bunkers is a slope that if a lower runner flies into will be graciously escorted to the green.  Very seldom can I fly the ball all the way to the hole.  In recent years I have used the slope to gather the ball onto the green.  Some guys I play with don't even know that option.  They haven't needed it.  My best friend knows that option but he can't even reach it with his best two shots.
Shot value, it seems to me, varies depending on the skill level of the player on many many holes.
Designing a hole that tests the has good shot values for different skill levels is a pretty difficult thing.  The best courses seem to do it best.

But it seems to me that there might be an analogous hole that will have those options in play for other players, while you are just playing bomb and gouge. So the shot values are there for those players too.

Before the ball got out of control (slightly after the time of the feathery -- Melvyn told me to say that), the shot values were more similar for different players. Now we just build five sets of tees.

[Jud_T]

“How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?

I've never met a double digit handicap, outside of a member guest, that has three skill sets.  This only makes sense for the skilled player which is supposed to be a criteria to rate for Golf Digest.  This is why Golfweek only requires the ability to walk and observe.  In the park, that is.

It's also why Digest comes up with a great list for 10% of their readership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doesn't shot value inherently include the ability to hit the required shot ?

Take the # 1 course in the country, Pine Valley.

While it can be played by the mid to high handicap from the forward tees, minimum standard shots are required on holes like # 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 18 and to a lesser degree on the other holes.

And, distance rather than accuracy seems to be "Golf Digest's" primary focus.

Ergo, I think "Golf Digest's" rankings are geared toward the better golfer, despite the fact that the panelists don't always qualify for that category

[Tom_Doak]

Does the definition of shot value depend on the ability of the player? Or is it the same regardless of the player’s skill level?

Tommy:

You've asked a great question, so it deserves a decent answer ... as opposed to what you've gotten so far.

Shot values are indeed different for every player. 

GJ is right that you could be overlooking a hole that gives the guy who's shorter than you the same chances that the hole you described gives to you.  Good players overlook that stuff all the time because it doesn't matter to them.

The problem is that scratch players think everything is defined around their games. They are not really much different than other golfers in thinking about the distance they hit the ball [even though they don't all hit the ball the same length] and THEIR idea of what's a solid shot and whether a green is receptive enough for the club THEY will hit on the approach ... but because they are "scratch" players they believe they are the definition of par and of fairness.  And that's the danger of having a panel full of them.

The definition of Shot Values the way GOLF DIGEST has written it seems to be about "a balanced test of golf", but they have set it up to mean "balance" for a particular player and not for everyone.  And it shows that they are still thinking about courses mostly as "a test of golf" and thinking that one size fits all, instead of recognizing that different golf courses have different purposes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Off Tom's post - which is why all the talk about the "right set of tees" and the modern tendency to have 4 and 5 and 6 sets on every hole suggests a misunderstanding of both the principles/values of golf course architecture and the practical realities/challenges of the game. The underlying assumption in GD's shot value/test definition is that, even for the good player, there will be be options (and correct choices to be made) vis-a-vis the length of course to be played (i.e. the right set of tees) -- and that the correct choice will make all subsequent judgements meaningful and sound. So I guess that if a skillful older woman or man played from the most forward set of tees, their judgements about a course's 'shot values' would be as valid as that of any other good player - as valid, say, as that of a rater who chose to play Whistling Straits or Kiawah from the championship tees.

Peter   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

I don't think a golfer's physical abilities limits or enhances their mental abilities.

I don't think you can generalize that a high handicap can't conceive of the tactical aspects presented to a low handicap golfer on any given hole or that a high handicap golfer can't conceive of the game as played by lesser players.
I do agree that most golfers tend to view the game primarily through their eyes, but not exclusively through their eyes.

There's probably no better example of that than C. B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor.
CBM was a world class golfer, Raynor did't play golf, yet both had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers and crafted courses for them 100 years ago that remain relevant today.

Setting criteria for hundreds of panelists from divergent backgrounds, abilities and perspectives is no easy task.
I don't believe the criteria, process or results are perfect, but they are interesting to many

[Tom_Doak]

There's probably no better example of that than C. B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor.
CBM was a world class golfer, Raynor did't play golf, yet both had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers and crafted courses for them 100 years ago that remain relevant today.

Just curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Seth Raynor had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers?

It seems to me he didn't need to have that, because he had Macdonald's carefully considered ideas, in template form.  And I've never seen an interview or an article where Raynor talked about different golfers and how they played the game.  I'd be happy if you could point me to such an article.

[John Kavanaugh]

There's probably no better example of that than C. B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor.
CBM was a world class golfer, Raynor did't play golf, yet both had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers and crafted courses for them 100 years ago that remain relevant today.

Just curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Seth Raynor had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers?

It seems to me he didn't need to have that, because he had Macdonald's carefully considered ideas, in template form.  And I've never seen an interview or an article where Raynor talked about different golfers and how they played the game.  I'd be happy if you could point me to such an article.

Finally.

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - we've had discussions about this before. I don't mean that a high handicapper can't conceive of how the architecture is meant to play. What I mean is that, while a good senior golfer playing from the forward tees might hit his/her tee shot to roughly the same spot in the fairway as good young golfer will (playing from the back tees), the approach shots they'll have left will still be vastly different -- the young player left with what is for him a 7 iron, for example, while the senior might have as much as a fairway wood in. Now, if implicit in GD's instructions to/definitions for raters regarding 'shot values' is that they will choose their sets of tees wisely, that would suggest that the magazine and their rating process is open to having the senior's opinion of those shot values (coming into every green with a fairway wood) carry as much weight and be just as valid as that of the young golfer (coming into every green with a 7-9 iron). Do you think the GD process is indeed open to this? It doesn't seem so to me. And if it doesn't, it means the process/system preferences a certain kind of golf course.

Peter  

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat - we've had discussions about this before. I don't mean that a high handicapper can't conceive of how the architecture is meant to play. What I mean is that, while a good senior golfer playing from the forward tees might hit his/her tee shot to roughly the same spot in the fairway as good young golfer will (playing from the back tees), the approach shots they'll have left will still be vastly different -- the young player left with what is for him a 7 iron, for example, while the senior might have as much as a fairway wood in. Now, if implicit in GD's instructions to/definitions for raters regarding 'shot values' is that they will choose their sets of tees wisely, that would suggest that the magazine and their rating process is open to having the senior's opinion of those shot values (coming into every green with a fairway wood) carry as much weight and be just as valid as that of the young golfer (coming into every green with a 7-9 iron). Do you think the GD process is indeed open to this? It doesn't seem so to me. And if it doesn't, it means the process/system preferences a certain kind of golf course.

Peter  

Peter,

One of the finest Digest raters I have ever had the pleasure of playing with was in a battle with Multiple Sclerosis.  Obviously his ball striking was limited.  Obviously he could rate a course according the the Digest standards as well as any competent golfer.  I believe you are a compassionate man based on everything I have read over the last few years.  Would you ask him to leave the panel because he can no longer execute the strategies that he sees clearly in his mind.

What I am personally sick of is this search for the perfect rater when we should be looking for the perfect course.

[Peter Pallotta]

John - I must be explaining myself badly, because both you and Pat seem to misunderstand me. I think the experience and insights of your friend are absolutely valid, and that he should continue to rate golf courses. I simply don't understand how the GD criteria and definitions, as currently constituted and in terms of what they imply/suggest, actually "values" that man's input - or mine, or an older man or woman -- as much as it does that of the young gun. And that, in turn, is bound to preference one type of course over another (and does, when the raters are consistent and in the moment, i.e. not bringing in too many outside influences/opinions into the process).

Peter

[Jackson C]

Tommy,

Good question, which brings the following situation to mind.
How does one (or Golf Digest) rate the following:
Redan hole say around 170 yards.  No major hazard in front, say just an elevated green site.
Scratch player can just hit it directly at the pin.
Mid and high handicappers likely to bounce the ball in, swing it in, use the slope or hill to get it close.
High shot value for mid and high handicapper but does not move the meter for a scratch?

[Jon Wiggett]

Tommy,

Good question, which brings the following situation to mind.
How does one (or Golf Digest) rate the following:
Redan hole say around 170 yards.  No major hazard in front, say just an elevated green site.
Scratch player can just hit it directly at the pin.
Mid and high handicappers likely to bounce the ball in, swing it in, use the slope or hill to get it close.
High shot value for mid and high handicapper but does not move the meter for a scratch?

Unless the ground is firm enough to require the player to bounce the ball in, swing it in, use the slope or hill to get it close. Of course, the best way to play the original Redan is to knock the tee shot long and the chip & putt for par

Jon

[jeffwarne]

Tommy,

Good question, which brings the following situation to mind.
How does one (or Golf Digest) rate the following:
Redan hole say around 170 yards.  No major hazard in front, say just an elevated green site.
Scratch player can just hit it directly at the pin.
Mid and high handicappers likely to bounce the ball in, swing it in, use the slope or hill to get it close.
High shot value for mid and high handicapper but does not move the meter for a scratch?

I'm not really sure how that's any different than any other hole.
That's why they get so many shots
But remember that 170 hole may be 200+ from the tees the scratch plays

But the whole thing gives me a headache .

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's probably no better example of that than C. B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor.
CBM was a world class golfer, Raynor did't play golf, yet both had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers and crafted courses for them 100 years ago that remain relevant today.

Just curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Seth Raynor had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers?

Shirley, you can't be serious ?

It seems to me he didn't need to have that, because he had Macdonald's carefully considered ideas, in template form.  And I've never seen an interview or an article where Raynor talked about different golfers and how they played the game. 

I'd be happy if you could point me to such an article.

Tom,

I think his work product spoke volumes;.

After I played The Country Club of Fairfield, Westhampton, Everglades and Mountain Lake, I didn't need to read anything from a third party author telling me how good those golf courses were.  I didn't need a third party author educating me on the routing, strategy, features, challenge and fun presented by Raynor when I was playing those courses.  

And while I recognized Macdonald's template holes on each course, those courses represented a compendium of diverse architecture that extended far, far beyond the stamping out of Macdonald's templates.

To categorize Raynor's efforts and his entire body of work as merely the introduction of Macdonald's templates to each site is to do Raynor a great disservice.

I've played those courses with a variety of golfers, golfers with handicaps ranging from + to the 20's.
Hence, I've observed how other levels of golfers interface with the course/architecture/features.
One doesn't craft an abundance of quality holes that appeal to and accomodate every level of golfer absent an understanding of their games.

In addition, Raynor mentored Charlie Banks, an English Professor he met at Hotchkiss, who joined Raynor in 1921 and went on to design courses like Essex County, Forsgate, The Knoll, Montclair 4th, and Rock Spring, courses I've been playing for 60 years.   Courses that sprinkle Macdonalds templates amidst his own designs.  I've also played those courses with a wide variety of golfers, from a U.S. Open champion to beginnners.
Hence, between my personal experiences of over 60 years and my powers of observation, I don't think I need to "read" about someone's work to assess it, not just in the context of a good player's perspective, but in the perspective of the wide variety of golfers.

I didn't need to read about Pacific Dunes or Sebonack to recognize and be informed of their merits.
They were self evident, to me, and to the other diverse handicap golfers I played with.
If my, or anyone else's, education and knowledge of golf course architecture was confined to what had been read, you'd have to categorize our education and knowledge as........limited, dependent upon the perspective of the authors.

In addition, the courses I cited, didn't remain mostly intact because their architecture was flawed and unable to accomodate every level of golfer.

You know, as well as anyone, that clubs are comprised of a very small percentage of good golfers.
The general populations are comprised of mid and high handicap golfers.
I think the average handicap is something like 16 and probably closer to 18, which means that half the golfing population has a higher handicap.

When courses like CC of Fairfield, Everglades, Mountain Lake and Westhampton have remained mostly intact for close to a century, I think a prudent person would conclude that those courses appealed to and accomodated every level of golfer.  I don't think you need to read that, to conclude that.

But, if you think that Raynor's body of work lacks merit because you haven't read that he didn't have an understanding of every level of golfer's game, let me quote the following:

"........he scarcely knew a golf ball from a tennis ball when we first met, and although he never became much of an expert in playing golf, yet the facility with which he absorbed the feeling which animates old and enthusiastic golfers to the manner born was truly amazing, eventually qualifying him to discriminate between a really fine hole and an indifferent one."

"..... By this time Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen."

..... I admired him from every point of view."

Charles Blair Macdonald

[Patrick_Mucci]

Unless the ground is firm enough to require the player to bounce the ball in, swing it in, use the slope or hill to get it close.

Of course, the best way to play the original Redan is to knock the tee shot long and the chip & putt for par

Jon,

You didn't need to put a smiley face there..

When the hole is cut in the center or better yet, back, that's a good strategy at # 4 at NGLA, it tends to take scores higher than bogey out of the equation and brings the attainment of par to a reasonable level.

The key is, don't chip it back above the hole, leave yourself an uphill putt.

[Garland Bayley]

There's probably no better example of that than C. B. Macdonald and Seth Raynor.
CBM was a world class golfer, Raynor did't play golf, yet both had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers and crafted courses for them 100 years ago that remain relevant today.

Just curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Seth Raynor had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers?

Shirley, you can't be serious ?

...

Whose Shirley? And will she be coming to Kings Putter this year?

[Tommy Williamsen]

I think being a decent player helps understand the course better.  While architects like to say they design for all levels of players my gut tells me they still have the better player in mind when they unveil their baby.  I am sure they want the higher handicapper to enjoy the game, but to design a course that will not test the better player makes no sense.  One of my best friends is an 18. While, his skills leave a lot to be desired, he can see how the hole should be played if he actually could hit the shots required.  He finds enjoyment in those rare instances when he can actually pull the shots off. 

For instance, one of my favorite holes is 9 at Westward Ho!  It is a reachable par five.  There is a relatively deep bunker fronting the green. The green undulates and slopes front to back. The best play is either to lay back or go wide right or left. I prefer right because it gives you the best option to make four.  Regardless of your ability the hole tests your game.  It just tests it differently.  The shot value is high for every player.  Designing holes like that are rare but when you find one cherish it as a good friend you want to get to know better. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I think his work product spoke volumes;.
...
 if you think that Raynor's body of work lacks merit because you haven't read that he didn't have an understanding of every level of golfer's game, let me quote the following:

"........he scarcely knew a golf ball from a tennis ball when we first met, and although he never became much of an expert in playing golf, yet the facility with which he absorbed the feeling which animates old and enthusiastic golfers to the manner born was truly amazing, eventually qualifying him to discriminate between a really fine hole and an indifferent one."

"..... By this time Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen."

..... I admired him from every point of view."

Charles Blair Macdonald

Patrick:

I never said "Raynor's body of work lacks merit".  Don't make up things I said in order to refute them.  I asked how you KNEW Raynor understood the games of golfers of all levels, and all you've said above is, basically, he must have because his courses have stood the test of time.  That could be because of Macdonald's templates, and the holes which inspired them to begin with.  A lot of guys have built a lot of Redans in America, and most of them work pretty well, whether the architect is a maestro or not.  

I have a young Chinese woman who is working for me now, who is very smart but I can assure you doesn't know much at all about the games of golfers of all levels yet.  She had never played golf before we had her take some lessons with Grant Rogers while she interned in Bandon for a while, but she has worked on plans for golf courses with an engineering firm in Beijing for three years.  Between that experience and what she's learned in a couple of years with us -- and having seen National and Chicago Golf Club, among others -- I'm pretty sure she could take those templates home and build some courses that would be better than most anything in China.  But, I hope and believe that she has higher aspirations than that.

Macdonald's quote about Raynor reads like a blurb on the back of a book jacket.  He said that "eventually Raynor was qualified to discriminate between a really fine hole and an indifferent one."  Hell, even you can do that.

[Mark Bourgeois]

I think this has been said in different ways but what does everyone think of this:

Gene Sarazen's invention of the sand wedge lowered shot values at Yale for pros and tippy top amateurs but increased shot values for the rest of us.

[Jon Wiggett]

Unless the ground is firm enough to require the player to bounce the ball in, swing it in, use the slope or hill to get it close.

Of course, the best way to play the original Redan is to knock the tee shot long and the chip & putt for par

Jon,

You didn't need to put a smiley face there..

When the hole is cut in the center or better yet, back, that's a good strategy at # 4 at NGLA, it tends to take scores higher than bogey out of the equation and brings the attainment of par to a reasonable level.

The key is, don't chip it back above the hole, leave yourself an uphill putt.

or have nerves of steel and be wearing nappies

and for good measure

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

I never said "Raynor's body of work lacks merit".  Don't make up things I said in order to refute them.  
I asked how you KNEW Raynor understood the games of golfers of all levels,

That's neither what you said or more importantly, what you implied.
You stated:

Just curious how you arrived at the conclusion that Seth Raynor had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers?

This implies that Raynor didn't have a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers.
It further implies that you needed me to provide written proof, preferably from a third party, confirming that he had a comprehensive understanding of the games of all levels of golfers, as if written proof was the only method by which his understanding could be confirmed.
However, I thought I produced a well reasoned response.

It seems to me he didn't need to have that, because he had Macdonald's carefully considered ideas, in template form. ]/i]

I addressed the above statement by citing all of the quality non-template Macdonald holes that populated his courses, presenting those holes as evidence that he was not one dimensional    and confined only to reproducing Macdonald's templates.


And I've never seen an interview or an article where Raynor talked about different golfers and how they played the game. [/i][/u]

So what, I've never seen an interview or an article where you, Pete Dye, Bill Coore, Charlie Banks or others talked about different golfers and how they played the game. 
Now, that could be a function of my limited exposure in terms of reading, or, by the fact that such interviews and/or articles aren't in publication.   But the absence of an interview or article, or my inability to produce one, post haste, isn't de facto proof that he wasn't capable of understanding the games of all levels of golfers.

I'd be happy if you could point me to such an article.[/b][/size][/color]

And I'd be equally happy if you could do the same for me regarding the architects I mentioned above

and all you've said above is, basically, he must have because his courses have stood the test of time.

Now Tom, you're a very bright guy, Shirley you recognized and understood that that's not all I've said.
Don't make up things I said in order to refute them   


That could be because of Macdonald's templates, and the holes which inspired them to begin with.  
A lot of guys have built a lot of Redans in America, and most of them work pretty well, whether the architect is a maestro or not.

But that doesn't account for the hundreds and hundreds of other non-template holes he built, does it ?
Certainly the quality of the courses and their ability to sustain themselves has to be evidence of their substance. 


I have a young Chinese woman who is working for me now, who is very smart but I can assure you doesn't know much at all about the games of golfers of all levels yet.  She had never played golf before we had her take some lessons with Grant Rogers while she interned in Bandon for a while, but she has worked on plans for golf courses with an engineering firm in Beijing for three years.  Between that experience and what she's learned in a couple of years with us -- and having seen National and Chicago Golf Club, among others -- I'm pretty sure she could take those templates home and build some courses that would be better than most anything in China.  But, I hope and believe that she has higher aspirations than that.


I know Me Dok Tu. 
But what about all the other non-template holes she'd have to design.  Can she produce exceptional non-templates ?
Shirley, you're not attempting to claim that Raynor's work was solely confined to Macdonald's templates, are you ?


Macdonald's quote about Raynor reads like a blurb on the back of a book jacket.  He said that "eventually Raynor was qualified to discriminate between a really fine hole and an indifferent one."  Hell, even you can do that.

Maybe.
I don't think you can dismiss the entire body of Raynor's work as being cloned templates.
He's designed some exceptional courses with exceptional non-template holes, courses that remain mostly unchanged over close to a century.
You and I both know how significant that is.