Basic Principle?

[SL_Solow]

After reading the post recommending George Waters" book, Sand and Golf, I purchased a copy.  It is worth having in your library although, I confess, it does not break much new analytical ground. (great pictures)  However I found one statement very thought provoking. On pages 40- 41, he states " Too many courses focus on separating a good shot from a bad one.  The real goal should be to separate a good shot from a great one, while allowing the bad shots to eventually find their way home."  Is this a better formulation of the "hard par- easy bogey"  formulation reduced to the analysis of single shots?  What does it say about the nature of forced carries, particularly over water?  It has caused me to think about why I like certain holes.  I am interested in the reaction of others.

[Mike Hendren]

Greetings Shel!

On its face this makes perfect sense.  Then  again, how many great shots does one make in an 18 holes round?   Me, I draw the line between good shots and decent shots.  With decent shots I can avoid dougle-bogey, which I must do to score since I make few birdies resulting from great shots.  I agree that bad shots need no separation.  Res ipsa loquiter as you barristers like to say.


Bogey

[Jeff_Brauer]

It would seem to change "hard par, easy bogey" to "hard birdie, easy par."  Which, is fine for me.  Aim at safe part of a gently rolling green and have an easy two putt (okay, maybe there are no easy two putts for some of us) vs. challenging the hazard to get close enough for that 50% chance of making that putt (about 12 ft. for the top players, maybe 6-8 for the rest of us.

It is also why top shot bunkers and other somewhat nostalgic features around here have gone away, as has most penal architecture.  If someone hits a tee shot short, and he can't reach the green anyway (about 200+ yards to the green) why bother to punish that, as bogey has almost certainly been incurred.

All is says about forced carries is that they should have a way around them, which is also pretty common practice, unless prohibited these days by enviro restrictions.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It also suggests that most or all greens have open fronts so any sort of shot (topped, rolling, etc) can find one part of the green.  Covering up about 10-15% of the green front is enough (depending on the angles) to make shooting at the pin harder than shooting for the fat middle of the green.

[Sean_A]

Greetings Shel!

On its face this makes perfect sense.  Then  again, how many great shots does one make in an 18 holes round?   Me, I draw the line between good shots and decent shots.  With decent shots I can avoid dougle-bogey, which I must do to score since I make few birdies resulting from great shots.  I agree that bad shots need no separation.  Res ipsa loquiter as you barristers like to say.


Bogey

Bogey

I agree with you.  The distinction should be between good and decent shots and on the marginal end, the course accommodating a shot (meaning the shhot was iffy, but the ball shouldn't be lost).  It is course set up which should differentiate between great and good shots and that should only apply on rare occassions.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

I'm not so sure that easy par/tough birdie and easy bogey/tough par aren't simply the same thing for different players. The point surely is that the concept is not excessively penal and allows for recovery. Essentially it's the promotion of the ground game and, by extension, a lack of water and/or other forms of finality at every turn. Miss a green left or right from 200 yards and you're unlikely to make birdie but you might just get up and down......but not if your ball is at the bottom of a pond.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul, you are probably right, and all shades of gray in between.

Another way to express it was from Jack N, who said a golf course should never intentionally hurt you.  It should give you chances to hit excellent shots.  Even Mac and the old guys said about the same - a course should inspire you to play better golf and not beat you up.

From some of the comments by posters here, I sense they are not yet at that sense of enlightenment stage where they realize that architecture is NOT about punishing bad shots, but encouraging good ones, if one dares just a little.  Set up a feather cut to a back pin, but make the bunkers 4 feet deep and not 40 (except for the occasional wow factor)

[BCrosby]

Note that such ideas have been around for a long time. Indeed, they go back to John L. Low.

In his 1903 book Concerning Golf and in other places, Low said that the main function of bunkers was to punish the almost, but not quite perfect shot. Bunkers should be located to catch the "not good enough" shot of a golfer playing aggressively. Bunkers should not be located to catch merely foozled shots. And so forth.

Bob