Lets go cut down some trees!

[THuckaby2]

Dave:

You're the lawyer and boy do I feel like I'm being deposed again.  I will grant that when it comes to debate, you are a +3 and I am a hack 22.

So let me just try to clarify my positions again, and you tell me where I go wrong:

1. It's a better hole today and that to me is the really main issue here, all others are superfluous.  I suppose this is debatable - everything is - but to me it's so crystal clear, and I take this from my many playings of the golf hole, not to mention the concurrence of several very respectable folks on this thread, most of whom have played the hole many times - that this issue trumps all others.  But I know you disagree, so fair enough.

2. I AM considering the context of #10 in relation to the rest of the course and I am surprised you miss that.  I say in my 2nd to last post:

"See, I'm thinking that Pasa #10 fits in as today's brute even in the overall context of the course, because so many other holes are more for the "thinking man"... is a bit of contrast such a bad thing?"

I suppose you disagree with that as well, which is fine, but just do understand that I acknowledge context is very important.

3. Be it circular or irrelevant, I don't really know, that's for debate masters like you to decide... For me the bottom line again is that the trees aren't going anywhere, so this trumps the "theoretical" discussion.  It's like asking if The Road Hole would be better without the hotel or with trees added... I guess that's fun to contemplate, but useless in the end because it's not going to happen.  That's all I mean here.  So I see how this might be circular, and I guess my bad for that...  I just have a hard time discussing things that have no basis in reality.  As I say, the trees should never have been planted.  But since they were, is it so bad to consider how the golf hole plays anyway, especially given they aren't going away?  I find that a much more useful discussion than the purely theoretical "is it better with or without trees", and in any case a useful addition to that discussion.  Again, given we disagree on that, it's no surprise to me we disagree on the worth of taking this as the real overall issue....

Again, I just play the game.  The hole plays better with the trees.  All of the rest is interesting, but doesn't effect this bottom line.

TH
 

[THuckaby2]

Shivas:

Come on back out!

I doubt any number of playings would "settle" this issue though.  If one doesn't believe the hole plays better with the trees, seeing it again in person isn't going to change that.  Oh, I do believe Dave might get a better understanding of how the contours near the green actually play out, but still that wouldn't change his thinking.

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that!  

TH

[DMoriarty]

Tom (and whomever else dares read this), Sorry about the length of this.  I had a lot to say, and wanted to be clear and organized.    

I am also sorry if you feel like you were being deposed.  Whether it is from lawyering or not, my style of communicating involves a lot of questions.  I will try it without questions this time.

Obviously, they arent going to change Pasa 10, but you've figured by now that I see this as a bigger issue than just Pasa 10.  Not so much an issue with you but an issue with the way many view golf course architecture.  I am not trying to lawyer you, but explain to you why I have such a problem with your approach (and, indirectly, the approaches of many others.)  

The one thing we dont discuss enough on GCA is one's methodology:  On what do we base our opinions?  How do we come to reach our conclusions?   What are the assumptions which underlie our proclamations of "good" . . . "bad" . . . "better" . . . "worse."

To me the Pasa 10 issue isn't that you think this hole "better" with the trees.  My issue is more with how you reach this conclusion.  

I understand that you say that you are just talking about this hole.  But methodology and analysis don't work that way.  You have reasons for your opinion regarding this hole.  These reasons would apply equally if the same circumstance arose regarding a different hole.  For example, you applied very similar reasoning regarding the Rustic Canyon 2.  If I dare to paraphrase, you thought RC 2 would be "better" if the tee shot was more interesting and demanding.  You thought it less than demanding and/or interesting to just let the big driver whack away without much pressure or worry.  Seems very similar to our current discussion.  [Not trying to open up this old discussion, just giving an example of how you extend your basic reasoning beyond just Pasa 10.    

As you requested, I'll address your specific points, summarized as follows:  

1.  You keep saying it is a "better" hole now.   As near as I can tell, in this circumstance "better" to you means:  
   (a)  A more demanding, knee-knocking, ball busting tee shot.  While;
   (b)  Little or no possibility of rewarding a missed (or intentional) drive way right with a shot to the green from the far right, which you view as the easier angle;
2.  This analysis may not always apply, but it applies here for the sake of "contrast."
3.  You think you have a trump card.  The trees wont be cut down no matter what we say.  

Point 1(a). By my reading, your understanding of "better" in this case is antithetical to MacKenzie's, and that is what bothers me most about your approach.  You don't give any weight to either MacKenzie's ideas or his actions.  This was MacKenzie's course, the one he used to step out his back door and play!   All analysis should start with understanding MacKenzie, and all changes should try to emulate to the greatest degree possible what MacKenzie would have done.  
   To completely ignore MacKenzie when analyzing Pasa is insulting, disrespectful, and damaging to the history and future of the game.  Strong words, I know, but not meant to be insulting to you.  That is really the way I look at it.

I know that you say that you generally agree with MacKenzie, and just depart with him on this hole only.  I don't buy it.  You have said enough about what you look for in tee shots on long par 4s to make the think this is more than a one time fluke.  More importantly, wily-nilly picking and choosing when to follow principle is akin to not following principle at all.   Substituting another's framework in place of MacKenzie's is not only arrogant, it could ultimately lead to the destruction most that is MacKenzie at the course.  

Suppose the current green committee decided that, while they love MacKenzie and agree with his philosophy almost always, the 15th green just isnt fair.  Certainly an arguable point, if their framework is to make this green "fair" where flat=fair.   Say they did if for "contrast."  Such arrogance would be unforgivable.  

Point 1(b) (Far right provides best angle. . .)  We may just have a factual difference of opinion, as you have suggested.  But I will set out the theoretical basis for my factual observation nonetheless.  Again, I think you are discarding MacKenzie for a more conventional approach.  
  You think the best angle of approach is in line with the opening between bunkers into the long of the green.  In my opinion, you are being duped by conventional wisdom which tells us how to approach flat characterless greens with flat characterless approaches and a few greenside bunkers.  MacKenzie was a master of using slope.  While you apparently feel otherwise, this was one of his major principles, strengths and signatures.  I posit that MacKenzie almost certainly made full use of this particular prevailing slope on the approach, as it is the approach's most dominate natural characteristic.
It is true that you have vastly more experience than me at Pasa,  but I really doubt you have played many approaches into this green from well right of the trees, 225+ yards out.  My guess is that if you did, you might be surprised as to what the slope does with your approaches.

  But let's assume you are correct.  Say the angle is better from 225+ and far right than 150-175 and up the middle.  Say MacKenzie just built a bad, uninteresting hole, with an approach and options that dont make sense.  I still would rather have it MacKenzie.  For the reasons discussed above.

Point 2.  You say leave the trees and lack of strategy for the sake of Contrast.  I guess one could always justify completely departing from an overall philosophy or plan "for the sake of contrast," but I view this as a hollow argument.   MacKenzie loved variety, but I dont think what he meant by variety was to completely ignore his general philosophies, and turn one of his golf holes into something completely different.  Especially where the reason for so departing is in conflict with his general philosophies.  In short, what you see as contrast, I see as conflict.  

Point 3. As to the bit about not wanting to argue non-reality, that is your prerogative, but it seems strange to back away now after you got this whole thing going and then stayed with it for this long.    

[DMoriarty]

Dave.  

He had no choice?  Bullshit.  Could have planted trees.  Could have planted native tall grasses.   Could have built some other sort of nasty problem over there.  A ditch.  A hill. A series of nasty bunkers.  A barn.  A fence.  Any number of things could have served the same purpose as those silly trees.  

He wasnt optionless.  He didnt have to take the land the way it was.  He wanted to.  

If you had to justify your "dollars to donuts" bet based on his writings and his other works, I'd take your bet, even if the standard of proof was pretty damn low.  

Got any examples of MacKenzie similarly using trees to frame a long difficult hole and force a single shape of drive off a tee?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Let me see now.......In the past, you have always complained about Pasatiempo not having enough room because of the trees at #6, yet, at #10 it's O.K? ? ? ? ? ?

[Bill_McBride]

How the hell can you guys spend 115 posts debating the strategic location of a grove of trees that wasn't even there when MacKenzie died?  Debating whether he would have approved or not?  Jeez.....................let's go back to Fazio-bashing!

[DMoriarty]

Bill, that is a good question.  I have been wondering the same thing myself.  

I cant answer for TH or Shivas, but for me this has very little to do with Pasa 10, or the trees in question.   To me, this is about whether or not we should consider the principles, ideas, and actions of great architects when deciding whether to mess with their work.  I think we should.  Always.  

But apparently, TH and Shivas disagree.  From what they have written, I can only conclude that, if they think a hole "better" with a change, then disregard the great architect and let the change stand [the corrolary of course is ignore the architect and make the change.]  In this case they equate "better" with a "ball-busting" requirement off the tee.  They like "ball-busting" requirements off the tee, at least on this hole, therefore they say the change is good and should stand.  To colorfully but accurately paraphrase:  "To hell with MacKenzie."*

I have kept at them because I think this issue is very important.  Shivas' and TH's point of view is rampant and has led to the dimunition of many of our most precious golf resources.  

Other than that, all I can say is that if you arent getting anything out of this, then dont bother reading.  

If Ran would like us to stop the conversation, then I surely will.
______________________

*In fairness to Shivas, he hasnt quite said "to hell with MacKenzie," yet.  Instead he is applying another lame justification often used by those who ruin courses:  He is pretending that, despite the overwhealming evidence to the contrary, the architect would have wanted it this way.

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, my friend, no need to enter your magical mystical make believe forest to understand MacKenzie's intentions.  If he wanted to punish balls hit right, he could have used many other techniques short of planting trees.  As TH said to explain the lack of trees in Scotland, the holes requiring tension there "have plenty of ball-busting hazards in the way of rough, bunkers, gorse, bracken, etc."  MacKenzie could simply have used the American equivalent of one or two of these.  

"But what if the trees were there?" you ask.  Who said there werent trees there?  You think MacKenzie was afraid to cut down a few trees?   How do you think he got the width at Augusta, which you describe as a "tree nursery?"  How about the width in the wooded section of CPC?  

As to your post to Bill, you have entered the realm of So Ridiculous it is Laughable.  

What, we know so little about MacKenzie's architectural theories/practice that we have to resort to the Traditions of Harry Colt Analysis?  Actually I am relieved to see this-- when you start in with the Traditions of Harry Colt Analysis I know we dont have much more to discuss.    

And to reference Augusta to support your position?  Augusta?  And not just Augusta, but the 13th Augusta?   You must be mad.  From what I have read, heard, and seen on t.v. Augusta is [was?] about options, from green to tee.  Hole 13 is a perfect example of this.  Shape it perfectly around the corner, challenging the creek and maybe get home in two. Hit it right onto the sidehill and have a very long shot with an awkward lie.  Yes there are now trees way right, but to say that they were an integral part of the way the hole played when created is at best inaccurate.  

Why on earth would you offer up 13 at Augusta to bolster your argument?  To paraphrase MacKenzie, Bobby Jones, Tom Doak, Geoff Shackelford, and anyone else who ever had anything intelligent to say about the subject;  Augusta is about options, and was designed to reward great shots, not punish bad ones.   In contrast, at Pasa 10 you like no options and punishment for all but the perfectly shaped ball off the tee.

But I am glad you mentioned Augusta 13, because it seems like it might have similarities to Pasa 10 without the trees. Shape your shot perfectly and you are rewarded with a much shorter shot in.  Bail-out right and you might not get there in two, and might find trouble if you try.  


[Aside:  Of course at Augusta the golfer gets a flat lie on the left and an awkward lie on the right.  At Pasa it is the opposite.  But, because the green area of Pasa 10 is also sloped (if I remember correctly) and open on the right, the sloped lie on the left may be beneficial for shaping the ball into the green.  While the lie on the right might have been flatter, I suspect that the length of the shot and the slope of the hill at the green would have made this a very challenging place to go for the green in two.  

By the way, if the trees had been there, they probably would not have been in play off the tee when the hole was a par 5.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

How many great fairway bunkers have been lost at Pasatiempo because of trees?

[DMoriarty]

Shivas:  As I understand it, a player at Augusta 13 had options:  He could shape a shot left.  Or he could hit the safer drive to the right.  The trees at Augusta did not force him to play a certain shot for the sake of tension, ball busting, or anything else.

As to the hole being a par 5, I have a different take but have already set it out just above.

But keep in mind that I am not suggesting the hole be put back the way it was, or even that the trees be cut down even!  Only that we consider MacKenzie's principles, philosophies, etc when evaluating whether a hole is "better" one way or another.  Or at least that we have enough respect for the man and architecture to at least consider the issues.

Your argument that MacKenzie used trees to force a certain type of shaped shot off a tee falls flat.  Unless you can come up with some examples . . . and Augusta 13 obviously doesnt cut it as an example. (pun intended)  It is the epitome of the short par 5 with options.    

Come on, there are lots of MacKenzie courses out there and you have played or are familiar with the best in the US.  Give me some examples penalizing trees off the tee that rob the player of all lines but one?  

Just call me Bork.

[Scott_Burroughs]

A strategic tree in the middle of the fairway:  #1 at Barona.  A good drive favoring the right side gives chance to go for green (par 5) to the right of the tree, though bunkers front green and fairway is narrower.

Left of tree is lay-up and there's more fairway left you can't see from tee shot, so you tend to hit closer to tree .  Get lazy and you're stuck behind tree with punch or blind shot over.

[DMoriarty]

 Shivas, you have some odd notions about the roll of trees.   I have nothing against trees, and MacKenzie wasnt against ocassionaly using them either, for strategic purposes (read to create options.)  But the trees on Pasa 10 are not strategic.  The trees close all options except to play left or die right.  

Setting aside all of Rich's semantical B.S. about the proper use of the term strategic: Yes there are strategic trees and they differ from non-strategic trees.  Look at the holes you mention:

NOTE:  I am relying heavily on the pictures and text in Geoff's great book, Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club.  If you dont have it, buy it, look at it and read it, then tell me that MacKenzie liked to use trees to limit all options.

Non-strategic Trees

--Trees at issue on Pasa 10 (see above)

--Trees do border ANGC 13 on one side, and a creek then trees on another.  So what.  There is ample room in between for the golfer to have distinct options off the tee which matter to the rest of the hole.  A strategic hole, but the trees bording the hole play little or no part in the strategy.  

--Trees border CPC 2 on one side,  and if you go way right or long right, you might find them. (But isnt there OB over there as well?) So what.  There are a whole spectrum of relevant options off the tee.  Hit as far left as you dare and shorten the hole.  Nowhere does MacKenzie guarantee that the golfer can hit it as hard as he can anywhere on a 180 degree arc, and not get into trouble.  Next time, if you want to play safe and go right, hit less club.  Again, a strategic hole.  

Strategic Trees

-- CPC 14 looked nothing like it does now, I dont think the trees you found were there.  There were two trees near the landing area, one on each side of the fairway, very deep into the landing area.  The strategic tree on the right had a big strategic bunker right and short of it.  Challenge the tree and the bunker in the hopes of getting closer and a more visible shot.  Play left and safe for a longer shot in.  (I dont think the left tree was reachable.)  A strategic use of a tree, just like one might use a strategic bunker.  (I wonder if Dr. M added the bunker in case the tree died?)

-- There were also strategic trees on 17, the ones right in the middle of the fairway.  Hit short and right of the trees, risking the ocean and have a shorter, but open shot.  Blast left to open up the hole, but you better really blast it or you might be blocked.  Geoff says that, if blocked there was a place to play left and short.  See Shiv, you just don't hit it far enough.  

--Trees border both sides of the fairway on ANGC 10, but I do not think it a narrow fairway.  Also, remember that MacKenzie's ANGC 10 was substantially shorter, with the green just right of the MacKenzie "fairway" bunker which is always shown on t.v., ironically to demonstrate the course's authenticity.   I dont know if the trees were there or not.  If they were, and (as is the case now) the golfer got an advantage by hugging one side close to the trees.  As the hole is now,  Seve says  the advantagous shot is to hit a right to left ball hugging the left tree line-- better angle and straight forward shot.  Again strategy, straight down the middle or right and have a more awkward lie and a more difficult angle.  Hit left for a preferred angle but risk tree trouble.  


[As an aside, why are you so sure that those trees at ANGC 13 were easily in play as the hole was originally designed?  Any evidence or just your spectulation?  Remember there is a hill that is going to slow and deflect the ball bounding that direction.]

[Tommy_Naccarato]

David,
MacKenzie did like the use of trees. Mostly just to keep him warm at night.

[Forrest Richardson]

My favorite tree story is as follows:

The club's committee tells the architect they want to make sure to save a copse of trees off the fifth fairway. "Sure", says the golf architect. "I'll make sure we save them all".

The next day the committee woke to find a neatly stacked cord of wood with a note:

HERE ARE THE TREES FROM THE FIFTH HOLE, I RECOMMEND YOU DRY THEM FOR A FEW MONTHS BEFORE USING. REGARDS AND ENJOY.

[DMoriarty]

. . .  You can't just say [ANGC 13] has ample room and claim it's strategic off the tee and leave it at that.  That hole is strategic primarily on the second shot.  Go or no go.  that is what the hole is famous for.  That's what people have won and lost the majors for.  And before you remind me that the go/no go decision is impacted by the tee shot, let me mention that if that's what you think, then I could just as easily say that the decision is impacted by the prior 12 holes!

Shivas, I say this as your friend and because I think you need to hear it:   This is quite possibly the most ignorant, oblivious, and nonsensical statement by a regular that I have ever read on GCA.  It is beyond rpurdian.  Beyond that, I am speechless . . . utterly speechless.  I have read your post at least 10 times and I cannot believe it says what it says.  Imagine that . . . me speechless!  Fortunately others have said more than enough.

In my opinion, this thirteenth hole is one of the finest holes for competitive play I have ever seen.  The player is first tempted to dare the creek on his tee shot by playing in close to the corner, because if he attains his position he has not only shortened the hole but obtained a more level lie for his second shot.  Driving out to the right not only increases the length of the second, but encounters an annoying sidehill lie . . . A player who challenges the creek on either his first or second shot may very easily encounter a six or a seven on this hole.  Yet the reward of a successful, bold play is most enticing.

-- Bobby Jones; Golf Is My Game; as quoted by Tom Doak in The Life and Work of MacKenzie, p. 175.  

There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one.  One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment on a bad shot, to place its perpatrator in a bunker or in some other trouble wich will demand the sacrafice of a stroke in recovering.  The other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion of the excellence of the first. . . .

-- Bobby Jones; Golf Is My Game; as quoted by Tom Doak in The Life and Work of MacKenzie, p. 172.  

The key feature of the design were several slopes in the driving zones that could be used to gain added distance if the ball was played to the proper side of the fairway. This feature is still prominent on two, ten, 13, and 15.  In other words, a reward was given for placing a drive, rather than a penalty for improperly placing it. . . .

--Tom Doak, The Life and Work of MacKenzie, p. 172.  Emphasis added.

 

Strategy. The tee shot must deal with a creek guarding the left side, with a hard left turn 240 yds off the tee around pines and water.  The wide fairway is sloped steeply toward the creek, but near the water's edge the area flattens out.  The closer the player hits their drive to the creek, the shorter this dogleg left plays and the better the player's chance is of drawing a less severe stance.  What lends the strategic fun to this hole is the notion that a safe play off the tee and an even safer lay-up shot will still give most golfers a short shot that could set up a birdie putt, and at worse, a par.  Yet, if your swing is feeling sharp, eagles and birdies are well within reach with a price to pay should you fail to execute your shots.  

-Geoff Shackelford, Grounds for Golf, pp. 93-94.

The hole is a par 5 where you are always looking for a birdie or better. Simply hitting the fairway, though, is not enough. If you keep left, you'll need three or even four clubs fewer for your second shot over the creek that fronts the green.

--Seve Ballesteros, from Masters.org.

Dont you claim to be a big fan of the Masters?!?!??

[DMoriarty]

Part 2.

Got my voice back, and thought I should address the rest.

As to Pasa 10, I have repeatedly said my piece on why it would be more strategic without the trees.  I am not going to do it again. Besides, you've got bigger issues.

If I didn't hit it far enough on [CPC] 17, there aren't a lot of guys in the world who can.  I happen to agree with you in that those were part of Dr M's intent, therefore they shouldn't be fiddled with.  But, those are stupid trees and if they weren't his, they should go!

Great Shivas.  Save trees at Pasa to kill strategy and (but for MacKenzie) cut trees at Cypress to kill strategy.  Well, at least you are consistent in your desire to kill strategy.

So what are you saying re [ANGC] 10?  That if the fairway is wide enough, then penal is OK?  Aren't you saying that penal is OK and that it's just a matter of degree?  C'mon, you can't seriously be saying that trees are OK on the right of a dogleg left so long as they're a certain distance off the preferred line.  That's not a position about strategy.  That's just degrees of penal-ness.  Close is penal, but not as close isn't?

Boy you really dont get it, do you?  One side provides favorable approach, but is bordered by trouble; there is plenty of room on the other, less favorable side.   If you don't see this scenario as presenting strategic options, then you no nothing of strategy.  You would absolutely hate Rustic, since quite a few holes there rely on this strategy schematic.  

Oh yeah, see Tom Doak's quote above.

Re: the trees right on ANG 13.  I didnt see any discussion of the trees by those quoted above.  Perhaps they were not as key an element as you thought?

Honest to Pete, I don't get the whole notion that strategy matters so darn much.  If you hit it perfect, all the strategy in the world is irrelevent.  I swear, sometimes I think all this strategy stuff is just an excuse for hitting crappy shots and getting away with it.  Strategy is for chess and thermoneuclear war.  It has a place in golf, but it is not golf, per se.  All this stratgey stuff is really just degrees of penal.  so when you say "13 at ANGC has strategy within the tree lines" all you're really saying is that you can get away with a less than perfect shot and defer the ultimate penalty until later.

Well this makes perfect sense now.  You just dont like or get strategic architecture.  You dont understand it; Dont care for it; Dont believe in it; Dont want anything to do with it.   Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise, but I will say a little anyways.    

What I cant figure out is, why do you love the Masters?  Why do you love CPC?  Why do you love Pasa?  Why did you gush like a Huckaby after you played The National?

It is as if you absolutely love Monet's art and think him one of the greatest artists the world has ever seen, but also think that impressionism is a hoax and should not even be considered art.   It just doesnt make sense.  

[DMoriarty]

Shivas,

It was not my intent to take shots at you.  I did intend to be blunt about your view, because I thought (and think) that your position demands a blunt response.  Sure, I would have been "kindler and gentler" with most others, but it is you to whom I am speaking.  I dont recall us ever pulling any punches, on any topic.  That being said, I do apoligize for characterizing your post as "the most ignorant, oblivious, and nonsensical statement by a regular that I have ever read on GCA."  It wasnt that bad.  Top 10 or 15 on that list, but surely not at the top of the list.

So . . . let me tell you something my Kraut Mick friend . . . it's not personal . . . it's strictly business. . . . Well . . . for me its not business at all, but you know what I mean.  

As for the substance of our dispute . . . you see a different game than I do.  I still dont understand what you think is so great about CPC, ANGC, Pasa, and The National.  If you feel like explaining it here, that's fine, but if you'd rather discuss it over a beer, I certainly understand.  

TEPaul started a thread on a similar topic . . . maybe they will explain the whole strategy thing better than I.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

One thing stands out about the evidence you cite to support the notion that #13 at Augusta lacks strategy: your assessment of this hole appears to be based on how it is played by people playing in the Masters Tournament.

Isn’t that a strange way to assess a golf hole?

Aren’t folks playing in the Masters a super elite category of players with skills far beyond 99% of people who play golf? Wouldn’t it make more sense to assess how the hole plays for very good players (e.g., a 10 handicapper) and for people more in the middle of the pack (people with handicaps in the 16-18 range)?

For our friend the 10 handicapper, there certainly are decisions to be made. He has to assess how aggressively to play both the tee shot and the approach shot (assuming he has pulled off a good enough tee shot). What makes things interesting is that this player is capable of hitting good shots and reaching the green in two, but he has to play the odds. He has to assess how likely he is to pull off the shot. That’s the risk reward part of the game. The player understands the benefit of well played shots, but also knows that if he overcooks and pull hooks into the trees or doesn’t quite ht his approach flush he may find the water in front of the green and disaster may strike.

I’d say forget about the professional game when assessing the hole. That level of skills is too rare to be given much weight. Our discussion about the merits of a hole should focus on play for very good to average players, not the super elite.

[Jeff Fortson]

My least favorite line from any golfer is.....

"The trees on (annonymous hole) really frame the hole."

If you need trees to frame a hole you can say goodbye to options.  The problem I have with trees is when they FORCE play in ONE direction.  I don't mind trees making you choose multiple routes.

Jeff F.

[Forrest Richardson]

Jeff said, "If you need trees to frame a hole you can say goodbye to options."

Not exclusively. Trees can play an integral role to golf and aesthetics, especially when screening from roads, housing, neighboring uses and certain consitions are present. Trees can also be used to separate holes when this is needed/desired. These uses — framing included — is not in lieu of options.

Framing is a loose term. Trees are familiar aspects of the landscape. They are even evident on linksland and have been purposefully planted as windbreaks and, yes, to frame holes.

I agree with your desire for options and agree that trees can support this. But I disagree that this is the only decent use for trees.

On the subject of options: It can be very comforting to have some holes on a course which clearly have few options else the carry. In this case — perhaps a "framed hole" with trees on both sides — the options to carry along a geodesic path is, in fact, an option to itself.

[Bill_McBride]

Don't know if I can agree that Augusta National was built for scratch players; Jones was certainly one, but I believe he built it for a membership which consisted of his friends and business associates from Atlanta and around the country.  The Invitational which became the Masters (not a name he picked) was a once a year event.  The membership today is probably representative of golfers across the country in talent if not wealth.  I'll bet the average handicap is 18.  And MacKenzie never designed courses for scratch players, his criteria always included players of all abilities.  Looking at #13 in that light, and considering players who have some self- awareness of ability, the hole becomes incredibly strategic.  Lay up too far right and the pitch must be difficult in the extreme.  Lay up too far left and the hazard is definitely in play.  

It seems to me that analysis of a lot of golf holes and courses is too much oriented to the top player, where 99% of play is by less skilled players.  The top players today are killing drives and playing aerial game shots into every green.  The less skilled players must utilize ground game shots from greater distances.  This fragmentation of the game has always been there but probably greater today than ever because of technology.

That's why firm and fast conditions are so important but infrequently seen..................

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

I'll have to go back and re-read the history of Augusta before I can agree the course was built for the super elite quality golfer. Was the club really created for the Masters or did the tournament just come along after the club was created?

Anyway, for the sake of discussion let's leave that aside and focus on the 10 handicap playing the tee shot. I think we would agree that many players of this quality can hit 260 yard tee shots. Where we may part company is the ability of this player to control ball direction. In many cases - I'd venture to say the majority - the 10 handicap will have a much easier time hitting the ball 260 yards than landing it within a target zone of 25-30 yards.

Imagine, for instance, the 10 handicap who fights a hook. He knows he can hit the perfect tee shot. He also knows if his swing breaks down he might face a lost ball. So, I do think he has a decision to make about how aggressive a line to take.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Shivas,

I can't find it right now, but if I showed you a drawing that was in MacKenzie's hand that had three (3) distinct routes to the hole, would you admit your caught in the inner circle of fault?

I didn't think so........

Anyway, chalk me up as another that believes the 13th as strategic from the tee.

[Tim_Weiman]

Shivas:

You must think about the game differently. I see what Geoff Shackelford calls "temptation" as part of strategy. In other words, the architect presents the player with choices, typically including a risky but rewarding route and a route that is less risky but also offers less reward for the well played shot.

What you want is to get the player thinking before he plays his shot. Part of what he needs to consider is the shot laid out in front of him. But, what adds to the interest is the need to also assess playing conditions and how well he is playing today, etc.

Our friend the 10 handicap is not just spraying the ball all over the place. To the contrary, he has SOME control......just how much he is never sure. That's what makes the game and hole like #13 at Augusta fun.

[T_MacWood]

shivas
I'm not sure where you are going with this, but you seem to be digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole. No need to drag poor Al Robertson, MacKenzie, Shackelford, etc with you on your sinking ship.

You appear to have only a superficial understanding of MacKenzie, his work and theories. I disagree with your take regarding the 13th at ANGC and the intended strategy of the tee shot. I also disagree with your conjecture regarding the 10th at Pasa...in fact it is a useless exercise.

ANGC was not designed for the elite players, just the opposite.