Forced carries: how many-how far?

[cary lichtenstein]

I love forced carries but they can be infair to the great majority of players. Our home course has  11 forced carries, which makes it unique. I've played the course enough times to have balls in all 11.  Some I have driven into off the tee, some I have laid up into, some I've duck hooked into, others I hit it fat into, I don't think I ever shanked one into, but I have hit the rocks, sucked it back into, just about all of everything, yikes, once I hit the stick and it ricocheted in

[Tommy Williamsen]

The forced carry doesn't need to be extremely long to be fun.  The forced carry on the first hole at Ballyhack is not difficult to accomplish, but the chasm staring you in the face makes the shot appear more difficult that is really is. It adds a little excitement to the shot.  It just makes it fun.  Not everything in golf is about score.

[Jason Thurman]

The forced carry doesn't need to be extremely long to be fun.  The forced carry on the first hole at Ballyhack is not difficult to accomplish, but the chasm staring you in the face makes the shot appear more difficult that is really is. It adds a little excitement to the shot.  It just makes it fun.  Not everything in golf is about score.

Exactly. No one likes carries they can't make. But almost everyone loves to hit a shot and watch it sail over disaster, even if the disaster is only 40 yards from the tee and the player carries it comfortably by 100 yards.

A lot of forced carries make courses more fun for everyone, as long as they're a conservative length from the appropriate tees. Jeff's post explained it well.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff, can you name any good (not great) course with nary a single forced carry?

I was out on one today ... San Francisco Golf Club.  Otherwise I would have said Royal Melbourne, although somebody will say there are a few holes at Royal Melbourne where you have to carry 50 yards of gunch in front of the tee.

Tommy:  Like Jeff, I generally try to avoid forced carries from the fairway, a carryover from working around Alice Dye for a few years.  Alice used to point out how difficult even a small forced carry was for women who could only hit it 50 or 75 yards in the air ... they might have to hit a 30-yard layup shot so they can get their next one across.  That always stuck with me.  I've seen some egregious examples over the years, holes which some women can't ever finish.

When you just had streams going across a fairway in the old days, and you could put turf right up to the edge of the water on both sides, that was not such a big deal ... but nowadays, the wetland area you have to carry is always wider, and it's just not practical for some golfers to make them carry it, except from a tee, and usually with an optional tee on the other side of the carry.

[Sean_A]

Gotta have some forced carries of at least minimal significance.  The excitement they add for the capable is too great to purposefully eliminate.  I think its best if from off the tee there is an alternate tee offering an easier angle with a bit of short stuff which isn't terribly hard to reach.  However, when I think of some of the carries to greens/fairways over great features that I think it criminal for them to be eliminated.

Here is a great one which doesn't kill the hole, but a bounced ball will not make it through the chasm.


Another quite narrow carry, but pot luck if there will be a reasonable play to be had.


Serious trouble for the topped shot.  Notice the the path like area left for the ladies to hit up.  The hole isn't really much shorter from there, but it does take away much of the danger.  This change of angle is exactly the sort of tee archies should be focused on rather concentrating on added yards as the main reason for multiple tees.  


Not an onerous carry, but it does take its toll from some decent players.


I spose folks are getting the other point I am making - these forced carries can be awfully attractive - especially those which don't look overly golfy - like this.  To me the stark difference in aesthetics is miles apart and that alone justifies why the above should be part of golf courses.



Ciao

[Martin Toal]

Anyone who doesn't like forced carries should avoid Royal County Down. Not only are there a number of decent carries to get over hills or pits full of gorse, but most of them are blind too.

In fact, they are a feature of the course and it would be a lesser course without them.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Berkhamsted, Kington and Beau Desert feature in your 2nd, 3rd and 4th pictures, I believe.  Where's the first, though?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Berkhamsted, Kington and Beau Desert feature in your 2nd, 3rd and 4th pictures, I believe.  Where's the first, though?

Mark

The much under-appreciated Yelverton.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48487.0.html

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Almost worth a visit for that hole alone.

[Rich Goodale]

There are an extraordinarily few forced carries in the world of golf that deserve discussion.  The two that come to the top of my mind are and will always be, 8 Pebble Beach (2nd shot) and the tee shot at 16 Cypress Point.  The latter has the "A man has to know his limitations" bailout "strategy" to the left and the former "Do anything other than go for the green and we know that for whatever reason the cost of a golf ball is worth more to you than your dignity."

That answers both the questions of "how many-how far?"

Any other holes mentioned are superfluous to any serious dsicussions about the world of golf.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Sean, are you saying you do not like the carry at the first hole at Ballyhack?

[Wade Whitehead]

I think the best forced carries are built on diagonals.  Depending on line, a player can make an aggressive choice or can play it safe.

16 at CPC is a great example of this.

It's the reason I like the carries at my home course.

WW

[Bill_McBride]

There are an extraordinarily few forced carries in the world of golf that deserve discussion.  The two that come to the top of my mind are and will always be, 8 Pebble Beach (2nd shot) and the tee shot at 16 Cypress Point.  The latter has the "A man has to know his limitations" bailout "strategy" to the left and the former "Do anything other than go for the green and we know that for whatever reason the cost of a golf ball is worth more to you than your dignity."

That answers both the questions of "how many-how far?"

Any other holes mentioned are superfluous to any serious discussions about the world of golf.

At the risk of posing an argumentative statement and pehaps being called a moron...      Neither of your examples are truly forced carries; each has a bail out to the left.   They are only forced carries if you choose to go that way.

On the other hand, Wade and Tommy's Ballyhack #1 is a true forced carry in that there is NO bail out.  We faced that shot on the first tee in late October 2011 in the Dixie Cup, into a brisk wind, the thermometer at 39 degrees, and frozen hands.   That was a forced carry!

[Wade Whitehead]

Bill:

Sounds exciting!

WW

[Sean_A]

Sean, are you saying you do not like the carry at the first hole at Ballyhack?

Tommy

I don't know, never played Ballyhack. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Bill:

Sounds exciting!

WW

Sorry but I called it fricking miserable!  Worst ever, until the next day at Kinloch when it was just as cold and added a steady downpour all day.  Thank god for caddies. 

At least at Ballyhack Lester and Jonathan brought around hot chocolate!

[Wade Whitehead]

One more: I'll always remember watching Kevin Lynch carry the ravine on #1 at Ballyhack from the back tee.

With a hickory.

WW

[Alex Lagowitz]

I particularly remember the Bear's Club in FL having a lot of forced carries.  A player in our group mentioned that when he was driving poorly, he would lose a dozen balls a round! (15 handicap).  I think that is, of course, excessive.  I am a fan of a few forced carries, and I think Flynn said that every course should have one exhilarating forced carry on tee shot, and another with a long club into the green.  But I also known Flynn was a huge fan of the recovery shot, so a forced carry over a sandy area is much more favorable than a lost ball.  I think any findable hazard is OK for forced carries, but too much over water or un-findable natural grasses is unfair.

[Jud_T]

a forced carry over a sandy area is much more favorable than a lost ball.  I think any findable hazard is OK for forced carries, but too much over water or un-findable natural grasses is unfair.

Bingo.

[Tommy Williamsen]

a forced carry over a sandy area is much more favorable than a lost ball.  I think any findable hazard is OK for forced carries, but too much over water or un-findable natural grasses is unfair.

Bingo.

When did it become important for a shot to be fair?

[Jud_T]

Not fair, findable and potentially playable.

[Matthew Petersen]

Jeff Brauer,

Interesting comments. But, just curious:  can you build forced carries that actually challenge really good players while not bring ridiculous for the average Joe?

I think the best are, as Wade said, those on a diagonal--which is to say those that are of the "bite off as much as you can chew" variety. Everyone gets to pick their own level of thrill tolerance for that sort of shot.

[Jud_T]

Matthew,

Why would the diagonal necessarily be best?  The big hitter can just bomb away on the line of charm and the higher handicap has to play out at a safe angle and is left with a very long second and possibly no chance to reach the green in reg.  Isn't a rectangular carry over sand or uneven land better?  This way while the big hitter can still bomb away on the proper line, the higher handicap can hit on the proper line as well and still have a shot if he mishits his first without the added difficulty of self-imposed additional length and a possible water ball.

[Kevin Lynch]

Matthew,

Why would the diagonal necessarily be best?  The big hitter can just bomb away on the line of charm and the higher handicap has to play out at a safe angle and is left with a very long second and possibly no chance to reach the green in reg.  Isn't a rectangular carry over sand or uneven land better?  This way while the big hitter can still bomb away on the proper line, the higher handicap can hit on the proper line as well and still have a shot if he mishits his first without the added difficulty of self-imposed additional length and a possible water ball.

Isn't that the strength of diagonal landing zones in general, setting aside the "forced carry" issue?  If a player takes on more risk and pulls it off, shouldn't he get rewarded with better options on subsequent shots? 

I think the general point about the diagonal is that the level of "forced" is variable, depending on how much risk you want to incur.  If the forced carry is rectangular, and is able to be carried even by a shorter hitter, it essentially eliminates the risk / strategy for longer hitters. The diagonal carry extends the risk/reward trade off to all players.

[Andy Troeger]

I prefer diagonals because (among other qualities), they usually force big hitters to avoid "bombing away" because there's a risk of going through the fairway into trouble on the other side. Every golfer must choose the correct line for their ability.