News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tom Culley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tigers and Rabbits
« on: May 08, 2013, 01:25:17 PM »
When reading A Round of Golf Courses, i noted that Dickinson often showed in his diagrams how a hole would be played by a Tiger, or a Rabbit. This to me seemed like a superb way of demonstration strategy and has certainly made me think differently when evaluating holes.

When designing a golf hole, is it common practice for architects to only consider these two different styles of play, or is there a case for three different players to be considered?

Do architects try to create an obvious (to the player) way for the Rabbit or Tiger to play a hole? Are there ever multiple Rabbit routes along with just one Tiger route?

When creating a hole, is the aim to design a hole for which:

The Rabbit tee shot is easy to play, however leaves a challenging approach,
The Tiger tee shot is more demanding however leaves a simper approach?

I hope these questions do not seem obvious. I am really interested in understanding design philosophy and would appreciate any responses.

"Play the ball as it lies, play the course as you find it, and if you cannot do either, do what is fair. But to do what is fair, you need to know the Rules of Golf."

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #1 on: May 08, 2013, 02:16:32 PM »
Tom:

I really like Tom Doak's description of someone playing a hole at North Berwick (I think the 12th) which is a dogleg left around a bunker with the better angle to the green being from the bunkered side of the fairway.  He describes someone playing well away from the bunker then on subsequent days playing closer and closer to the bunker until disaster strikes. 

I prefer that sort of design over holes that provide starkly contrasting options.  I find architects have difficulty designing holes in a manner that makes both options viable alternatives for more than a small handful of players.  For most of us, our choice is pretty obvious. 

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #2 on: May 08, 2013, 02:25:31 PM »
Tom,

You may be interested to read a bit from Harry Colt. He often considered players A, B, C and D. There are many on here that can advise you better about Colt but, just as a little starter, see what you can find under 'Harry Colt Essays,' or something like that.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #3 on: May 09, 2013, 04:10:03 AM »
Tom,

Thank you for the reminder of tigers and rabbits. You've caused me the pull Dickinson's splendid book from it's usual place on the shelf and be placed in my re-reading pile.

Further to Pauls ABCD comment regarding Harry Colt, in his book 'Spirit of St Andrews' Alister MacKenzie analyses TOC's 14th hole from the perspective of A,B,C&D players plus in his famous winning entry to the County Life competition he referenced I, II, III, IV and V playing lines.

All the best

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #4 on: May 09, 2013, 04:26:18 AM »
We had a conversation on the first use of "tiger" on some other thread.

To my knowledge, Tom Simpson was the first man to use the phrase regularly in the manner above (contrasting with rabbit).

Returning to Jason's post above though, I never believed he used the analogy in a one choice versus another / digital form. He too believed in all different shades of grey (as opposed to just black and white) when it came to strategy and angles.

In other words, it is better to have incremental rewards. The overused phrase "risk and reward" can be applied too easily to very penal golf holes in my experience. An example is a straight water carry to the green.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #5 on: May 09, 2013, 01:12:26 PM »
Tom - Bernard Darwin used those terms in at least a couple of articles I know of, and he praises the ability of architects to design holes/courses that can make rabbits, at least sometimes, feel like like tigers. The first snippet makes that point; the second one is more in line with your question.

"It is today an accepted principle of golfing architecture that the tiger should be teased and trapped and tested, while the rabbit should be left in peace, since he can make his own hell for himself. Broadly speaking, it is an excellent principle, but I wonder, nevertheless, whether those who enunciate and act upon it do not sometimes a little misunderstand the rabbit's heart.  Rabbits are tolerably sensitive animals. Do they not feel a little hurt that the architect thinks so meanly of their powers that he will put nothing in their way? [...]They must sometimes resent the implication that the attempt to trundle the ball in inglorious safety will give them more than all the trouble they want [...] Our architects are, of course, not only very skilled artists but very cunning persons, and they often contrive to make the rabbit believe that he is living more dangerously than in fact he is. There is one particular device employed to this end, though discretion forbids me to name particular courses. On one side of the green is a precipice full of bunkers, deep, cavernous and horrible; on the other side is a broad way of safety which coaxes the ball towards the flag. When we have played the hole successfully, we look shudderingly down upon those bunkers and think that there, but for the grace of heaven, we might have been. In our hearts we know that only a singularly atrocious stroke would have taken us there and that the bunkers are largely "eyewash"; but we cannot restrain a thrill of pride and pleasure. Easily as he is bamboozled, the rabbit, having played such a hole many times, comes to suspect that it is a simple one, and must long for something to surmount more genuinely perilous, more directly in his path. He welcomes now and again the possibility of swift and utter destruction, and likes to cry in his heart, even as he waggles, 'Victory or Westminster Abbey.'  Better a nine with four niblick shots in it than a six all along the ground."

"The voice of the rabbit is heard in the land once more. He does not resemble the cuckoo. In June he does not change his tune. His mournful song is ever the same.  The holes, he says, are too long and so are the carries; the courses are laid out by tigers for tigers. He has been recently saying it again in a number of letters to the press....Personally I have a great deal of sympathy
with these rabbits. As one who is sloping slowly, or perhaps not very slowly, towards their condition I agree that courses and holes are often made wearifully long. Because I sympathize with them I do not wish to emphasize too strongly the fact that some of their premises are doubtful and weak.  They imply that it is only the good players who are the long drivers, but in fact there has arisen today a whole generation of golfers, all of whom can hit the ball a long way, yet many of whom are far from being good players.... They seem also to imply, in their demands that  skill and accuracy should be rewarded, that these attributes go with short driving, but this is not so; the majority of short drivers have little skill, and their accuracy consists largely in being so short as to be unable to reach the rough. When all is said, however, I agree that many courses, at any rate when they are at full stretch, are not calculated to give anything like the maximum of pleasure to anything like the majority of golfers. If this be so, where does the remedy lie? Surely in the hands of the rabbits... [But] In the first place they are lazy in organizing revolt, and in the second a great many of them from motives, whether noble or ignoble, like to think that their course has a reputation for being long and hard, especially longer and harder than those of their immediate neighbors. However that may be, until they do organize revolt it is perhaps not unfair to suggest that they deserve to remain slaves.  It is my private impression that a soviet of red rabbits would lay out a bad course, so bad that they would either share the fate of most revolutionaries and be quickly turned out, or else would be compelled to get a few mild scratch players of democratic tendencies to come and strengthen them. The sort of person who would lay them out a far better course than they would make for themselves would be a rather passé tiger brought up in the traditions of the elder Scottish courses."

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #6 on: May 09, 2013, 01:41:03 PM »
IMHO, designing a course that will work for a variety of players of varied ability was one of the beauties of older golf courses. Modern courses just put in enough tees so everyone can play the hole roughly the same.

Cheers,
Dan King
Quote
We played all our competitions off men's tees. We played country matches off men's tees, we played our county championship off men's tees, we played our championships off of men's tees. What do they do now? They play from the up women's tees. Today they say, 'Oh, we can't make it too tough, otherwise people won't want to play.' It's easy to drop standards and it's hellish hard to get them up.
 --Enid Wilson


Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Tigers and Rabbits
« Reply #7 on: May 09, 2013, 05:05:41 PM »
Tom:

I really like Tom Doak's description of someone playing a hole at North Berwick (I think the 12th) which is a dogleg left around a bunker with the better angle to the green being from the bunkered side of the fairway.  He describes someone playing well away from the bunker then on subsequent days playing closer and closer to the bunker until disaster strikes. 



Ironically to add length a new tee was created (I'm guessing) adding 25 yards.  In any kind of Easterly wind this brings a burn most people never noitce into play for the Rabits. The old guys just can't carry it. One think technology has done is sepearate the tow species so they can no longer enjoy the same course.
Let's make GCA grate again!