[Don_Mahaffey]

Absolute? The heroic type where pass/fail is easily measured? Take it on, hit the shot and great reward is earned. Fail to pull it off and serious trouble is the result? In military terms, it is like the very visible, but greatly fortified position on the high ground. Not easily taken, but the reward may be worth the possibility of failure.

Camouflaged? Where is the risk/reward line? Guerilla warfare full of dirty tricks and indecision. The path to reward not so obvious, and different paths may be taken by different players.

The absolute risk/reward is eminently fair as it is all there to see, take on, or avoid if possible. You don't have to try and tackle the fort as you can leave that to the stronger.

But is the camo approach fair? Why did I take on that bunker only to learn there might have been a better path? I hit the "perfect" drive; why am I left with a downhill lie with the ball below my feet to a green with trouble right?

Lots of examples of the absolute. How about the camo? I've sometimes heard this described as anti-strategy and not in positive terms. My experience is golfers like their golf straight forward. But we seem to be losing younger players to more adventurous outdoor activities.
Is it possible we need a little less "in your face" and a little more "in your brain"?

[Chris DeToro]

I much prefer risk/reward absolute as opposed to camo.  I think this is especially the case on a golf course that I don't have a lot of familiarity with and will probably play only once or twice.  I think camo risk/reward is fine for a members course where people are familiar with the potential hazards that are there, but for a one time play, I think it just takes away from the experience.  Because just as you mentioned, I hit, what I thought, was a perfect shot only to walk off with a high score and a dejected attitude (which doesn't take much to get me in  )

Could it be that absolute risk/reward isn't as "adventurous" because many of those examples, at least that I can think of, either A) present too much risk or B) the risk isn't nearly as severe as the potential reward?  

[Matt MacIver]

Guess I like a bit of all, but in moderation, so maybe over 18 holes I think I would like 9 tee shots that provide a 0.5 stroke risk/reward; 6 holes that provide a +1 stroke risk/reward; and three holes with a +2 swing.  Same then goes for the 2nd shot. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - it strikes me that good courses and good architects manage to balance playability and strategy and risk-reward and aesthetics/style and flow and challenge and interest so that no one element suffers unduly at the expense of any other.  I like my risk-reward "understated", because I find that when it is that element of the architecture/design is usually in balance with all the others. The "absolute/heroic" approach, on the other hand, seems almost invariably to cost something, i.e. to take away from/be detrimental to one or more of the other design elements, and so for me is not worth the jolt of fun/excitment that sometimes comes with a do or die situation. I don't want to confront a much longer walk, or an unnatural and unattractive feature, or an uninteresting and obvious choice as the price I have to pay for having a make or break shot -- because, after all, whether I make it or whether I'm broken by it doesn't really matter all that much, or at least not for very long. There's another 4 hours and some 80+ shots to go, and I would much prefer that the course work 'as a whole'.  

Peter

[Thomas Dai]

My preference has always been more camo, less absolute, but............with the use and popularity of rangefinders, satnav distance diagrams, yardage watches, distances on mobile 'phone apps and the like, camo ain't what it once was, unfortunately IMO.

The availability of yardage books and course planners, plus hit it high and land it soft on watered greens moved things away from camo to a degree but modern technology and the powers that be allowing distance measuring devices in comps up to very nearly the highest pro tournament levels has mitigated camo massively. A great shame.

All the best.

[Tom_Doak]

I like risk and reward to come in shades of grey:  the closer you play to one side, the easier the angle of approach, or the safer you play the tee shot, the tougher the approach.

I hate the black and white target golf that is all too common nowadays.  Pass / fail is for dummies.

[Brett Wiesley]

I'd echo Tom's comments on the grey side of things.  I also really appreciate a course where there is a deception type bunker/hazard.  You know, the one that from the fairway alters your play to the green/approach, but when you get closer you realize it's nowhere in play for a decent shot.  A really good one will always get you visually, not matter how many times you've played a course.

[Mark Bourgeois]

On the risk / failure side of the ledger, my personal favorites are the ones where I'm standing in fairway at #2 or RM after a drive and knowing I am screwed but not screwed at the same time. The usual process from there is to wish myself into believing there's still an opportunity for a hero shot, only to receive reality therapy shortly afterwards, and to learn once again the hole all along was just supplying more rope by which to hang myself. That doesn't happen every time or I'd make the smart play every time.

[JLahrman]

For a course that I play once or twice as a destination course, I don't mind the in-your-face shot.

If it's my home course, or someplace where I'm going to play a lot of rounds, I'll take the subtle camo thanks.

[Michael Felton]

I like it to be varying. The best examples I can think of of what I'm talking about are 6 and 16 at Pine Valley. The further right that you hit your shot, the longer the carry and the higher the risk, but the greater the reward if you pull it off. Another one I guess would be the 6th at Bay Hill (the par 5 round the water). I don't think it's a great hole because from what I've seen on TV (never played it) the water is so in your face that it would push me away from it, not entice me to take it on. In any case, it's a hole where, for the pros, the more they bite off the shorter their approach shot. If you took a hole like 16 at PV and made it so there was no bunker on the left and then one straight one on the right, so it was just about can you make the carry, that's far less interesting than how it is.

Basically the question should be "how brave are you going to be?" not "are you brave or are you not?".

I played one course in Arizona (I forget which one), but there was a thin stretch of fairway down the left and the right and a copse of trees in the middle. You could see through the trees, so I know that they opened out on the other side. I hit my driver over the copse (thinking that the fairway came back together again) only to find out that actually they gave way to a lake. Thanks.

[Randy Thompson]

I like risk and reward to come in shades of grey:  the closer you play to one side, the easier the angle of approach, or the safer you play the tee shot, the tougher the approach.

I hate the black and white target golf that is all too common nowadays.  Pass / fail is for dummies.

Maybe even, "Fifty shades of Grey"!
Golf for Dummies! Do they occupy the largest percentage of the market? Should they be ignored? I hate them also but would design one tomorrow if that were the Clients desire and it would help me stay economically a float another two years. Guess, I am a whore golf architect!

[Steve Kline]

I prefer the camo/gray type. But, I don't mind the absolute as long as it doesn't result in a lost ball. I hate lost balls more than anything else in golf.

[Tim_Weiman]

Steve Kline,

I feel exactly the same way.

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,
I would much prefer proportionality in my risk/reward equation. My destiny is then in my hands. Will my overreaching ambition lead to perdition? Will hubris be my downfall?

My favourite risk/reward shot is the one where the danger looks bad but after feeling that you have overstepped the mark and damned yourself you find your ball safe and sound in a hidden haven. That's the kind of camouflage I like!

Cheers Colin

[Sean_A]

Not accepting black n' white risk/reward scenarios is too black and white for me.  I generally prefer the indirect tax method of risk/reward, but I am always open to the heroic version.  Shit, I even like out n' out penal holes.  Its all good if well balanced.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Don,

Two additional thoughts:

1. Tom Simpson, writing about TOC, mentioned the difference between design that suppresses the truth versus design that suggests falsehoods. He praised the former and condemned the latter. You might find it interesting.

2. Regarding your distinctions -- and this is a question for everyone -- which ones are less obvious and might those be at a disadvantage for golfers who play the course only once? Does heroic pass / fail look better when the golfer faces it rarely? How would impressions of your categories change with more plays?

Mark

[Tim Lewis]

I like risk and reward to come in shades of grey:  the closer you play to one side, the easier the angle of approach, or the safer you play the tee shot, the tougher the approach.

I hate the black and white target golf that is all too common nowadays.  Pass / fail is for dummies.

I remember reading this part in The Anatomy of a Golf Course. Personally I enjoy the black and white strategy on courses that you only play a couple times, but as Mr. Doak said in in The Anatomy of a Golf Course when you play the course many times you tend to choose the same option repeatedly. Of course in a location where conditions change often, I think the black and white stuff can be alot of fun since you are changing your line often to cope with the current conditions. So I quess I like some of the black and white strategy on resort type courses where the conditions change often, and the camo strategy on a members course where conditions do not change as often.

[Rees Milikin]

I prefer the camo/gray type. But, I don't mind the absolute as long as it doesn't result in a lost ball. I hate lost balls more than anything else in golf.

More of an absolute guy myself, but couldn't agree with you more when the result is a lost ball.

[Ally Mcintosh]

A similar thread to this I feel:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55709.msg1292696.html#msg1292696

[Jason Topp]

Like a virtuous woman - plenty of mystery and significant effort required to explore and understand her charms.

[Tom_Doak]

I like risk and reward to come in shades of grey:  the closer you play to one side, the easier the angle of approach, or the safer you play the tee shot, the tougher the approach.

I hate the black and white target golf that is all too common nowadays.  Pass / fail is for dummies.

I remember reading this part in The Anatomy of a Golf Course. Personally I enjoy the black and white strategy on courses that you only play a couple times, but as Mr. Doak said in in The Anatomy of a Golf Course when you play the course many times you tend to choose the same option repeatedly. Of course in a location where conditions change often, I think the black and white stuff can be alot of fun since you are changing your line often to cope with the current conditions. So I quess I like some of the black and white strategy on resort type courses where the conditions change often, and the camo strategy on a members course where conditions do not change as often.

This seems like an interesting distinction, but it doesn't explain why nearly all of my best-liked courses are resort courses which people only play once or twice [per visit].

[Don_Mahaffey]

What if it is beyond grey? What if the risk reward is as simple as which side of the bump you end up on? What if risk reward outcomes can't really even be determined by your play as much as by luck? What then, good or bad, interesting or unfair?


BTW, Tom, I think your resort courses are popular because they are beautiful, don't reveal an obvious line of play so easily, and because the risk, and the reward is not so dramatic in many cases. Hit it to the proper side of the fwy and you are rewarded, but not so much that the next shot is simple, and your opponent who hit it in the wrong spot still has a shot as the risk didn't punish him too bad. I think that is exactly why some PGA tour types might say your designs are not "tournament" worthy. (I'm speculating here as I've never actually heard that).

What I am saying is I think most expert golfers want it spelled out, "right there in front of me," and seriously dislike hitting a shot to the proper side of the fwy only to find an awkward, uneven stance. But, while the weaker player may not be a fan of that stance either, he can still advance the ball and possibly make a par or bogey, but Mr +4 is pissed because not only is birdie now very tough, but bogey has entered the equation and that is simply not fair after hitting it exactly where he wanted.

[Carl Rogers]

I like the 'cape' hole as it operates at a number of 'shades of gray' or the heroic 'black and white'.

[Peter Pallotta]

Don: your comments about why Tom's courses are popular and highly regarded made me think this, i.e. that the naturalism and beauty  those courses seem to manifest comes about for many reasons, one of which is that there are so few absolute or obvious risk-reward situations. I'm convinced that the golfer's "eye" senses (even if the mind doesn't register and words don't express) that such absolutes aren't natural, and that the architect has put them there. So Tom's courses work on many levels at once (and I think Mike and you managed to the same feat at WP); while the prototypical tournament course (almost by definition) works mostly and only on one.

Peter

[Colin Macqueen]

Gentlemen,

Peter P. writes
 "I'm convinced that the golfer's "eye" senses (even if the mind doesn't register and words don't express) that such absolutes aren't natural, and that the architect has put them there."

Is this a Canadian Behr's one last growl before enforced hibernation!?

Cheers Colin

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()