GCA Mythbusters - The subconscious effect of Langford's topped shot bunkers

[Jason Thurman]

The Myth: “Topped shot” bunkers that are offset to the target line but short enough of the target itself to be generally out of play still affect play by subconsciously pushing golfers away from the hazard. See, for example, the 10th hole at Lawsonia as discussed by Ran in the Lawsonia course profile.

This bunker 60 yards short of the 10th green makes the golfer want to cheat to the left and as a result…

…the seven foot deep left greenside bunker gets plenty of play.

This is a technique that a lot of Golden Age architects used. Langford employed it with regularity, as the par 3 with an offset bunker well short of the putting surface is seen on several of his courses. The “study” in this thread centers on the 6th hole at Clovernook, a hole virtually identical to the 10th at Lawsonia aside from its being 60 yards shorter.



If the myth is true, then shots hit from the 6th tee at Clovernook should show a tendency to end up left of the target, the result of a pull from a golfer who subconsciously steered his shot away from the gaping hazard that dominates the view from the tee but is generally out of play for any decently struck shot. If this indeed proves to be the case, it’s a cunning piece of design as the 6th green tilts considerably from left to right, making the right side the preferred miss.

The Study

The 6th hole at Clovernook is located next to a practice green, which makes it an easy place to observe play. I watched 82 golfers play the hole since April, and tracked where their tee shots ended up. Here’s a breakdown (rounding accounts for why this totals to 101%):

% of players to hit the green: 32%
% of players online with the green but short of the putting surface: 15%
% of players who miss the green left: 22%
% of players who missed the green right: 32%

% of players whose shot finished within 10 yards of being online with the flag: 27%
% of players whose shot finished 10+ yards left of the flag: 37%
% of players whose shot finished 10+ yards right of the flag: 37%

Conclusion

As you can see, more players actually missed the green to the right than to the left. Yet, dispersion on each side of the pin was identical, with the pin more frequently placed on the right side of the green than the left during the days that I observed. It is worth noting that only one player ended up in the bunker.

Of course, this is a small sample size and there’s no control group. To really see whether players are more likely to miss to the left on Clovernook’s 6th than they would be if the topped shot bunker were to be eliminated, a similar observation would need to be done on a same-length hole with similar playing qualities but no such bunker. Another thing that may be worth noting is that, as a private course, most of the people I observed are intimately familiar with the hole. They may have learned over repeat plays that the ideal miss is to the right and thus learned to ignore the topped shot bunker.

Qualitatively, though, it certainly appeared that any subconscious effect the bunker has on a player is completely overridden by the conscious and subconscious desire to get as close to the pin as possible. In general, it was quite clear that shot dispersal followed the location of the pin. I’m not smart enough to quantify that beyond the data  posted above, but it was easy to notice when watching players hit.

The myth isn’t busted, but it’s close. After watching 82 rounds, I would be willing to wager that players on a “control” hole with no topped shot bunker will show a similar dispersal that reflects the line to the pin is the ultimate driver of where their shots finish.

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:

I think it's wrong to assume (as Ran did) that a certain feature will cause certain results, because all golfers react differently to pressure.

However, I think it's undeniable that the bunker adds a bit of pressure, so I think that a "control hole" without a bunker would show a couple or a few more players hitting the green.  You'd have to study a lot more than 82 golfers to find statistical significance, though.  And, really, the average golfer is so erratic that determining ANY pattern is difficult.  Even Tour players miss it all over the place, when they miss.

[John Kavanaugh]

Top shot bunkers and water hazards always get in my head.  They are similar to forecaddies in that I may have never hit one but they become another unwelcome factor in the formula.

[JLahrman]

You'd definitely want a control hole. The presumption that most players are right handed, and that players are more likely to hit slices than pulls and hooks, could be artificially busting the myth.

[John Kavanaugh]

There is no algorithm for why a bad shot occurs.  Sometimes a hazard, a ball in a divot or even a tree is just enough to create a good swing.

[RJ_Daley]

Jason, the overall configuration of the 10th Lawsonia and 6th Clovernook is remarkable.  It think the effect to get into the player's head to influence the execution of that shot is fairly obvious, given both top shot bunkers are set quite a distance from the actual green.  But, I think the effect is far more potent with the long par 3 than the short one you describe as 30 yards overall playing distance from the tee.  It seems it is far more likely or potentially possible for a golfer to pre-swing worry about topping a flat iron 2-3-4 or hybrid, than to hoist a mid to short iron over the TS bunker.

I think we have discussed the notion of top shot bunkers and why they are there in many architects repitoire, and it was acknowledged that in some cases the primary reason for their location is simply a source for dirt to be scooped out and placed to build the nearby tee pad.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting, Jason. But along with the points that Tom and John make, I'd suggest this: that part of the mystery and magic of how good golf course architecture 'works' -- and the reason it's so hard to try to objectify it -- is precisely because how we interact with that design is not only a subjective experience, but a subjective experience that is in large part unconscious/subconscious and in even larger part fluid and ever-changing.  

I could play the first 8 holes of a great course and take in that wonderfully complex mix of vistas and features/hazards and distances and shot-demands and flow and options and highs and lows that comprise the design, and then get to the 9th tee and try to tell you who the course has affected me so far. But if I'm now faced with a blind shot to a distant fairway, all that has come before will be at work/at play somewhere in my mind but not readily present to my consciousness -- until perhaps I hit that shot and ponder how the result (good or bad) may have been influenced by unconscious/subconscious factors.

And even then, I'd just be guessing -- which is why I suppose the test of time (and hundreds of thousands of rounds) is a good one in trying to judge great gca, i.e. the combined/collective 'results' of all those rounds might give us an idea of how much is in fact at work in the design.

[JMEvensky]

Interesting, Jason. But along with the points that Tom and John make, I'd suggest this: that part of the mystery and magic of how good golf course architecture 'works' -- and the reason it's so hard to try to objectify it -- is precisely because how we interact with that design is not only a subjective experience, but a subjective experience that is in large part unconscious/subconscious and in even larger part fluid and ever-changing.  

I could play the first 8 holes of a great course and take in that wonderfully complex mix of vistas and features/hazards and distances and shot-demands and flow and options and highs and lows that comprise the design, and then get to the 9th tee and try to tell you who the course has affected me so far. But if I'm now faced with a blind shot to a distant fairway, all that has come before will be at work/at play somewhere in my mind but not readily present to my consciousness -- until perhaps I hit that shot and ponder how the result (good or bad) may have been influenced by unconscious/subconscious factors.

And even then, I'd just be guessing -- which is why I suppose the test of time (and hundreds of thousands of rounds) is a good one in trying to judge great gca, i.e. the combined/collective 'results' of all those rounds might give us an idea of how much is in fact at work in the design.

I can't believe you bowed to multiple paragraph pressure.

What if JJ had listened to an editor's opinion on Finnegan's Wake?

[Emil Weber]

Really cool idea Jason! Have there been more of these? I must have missed it.
A couple of observations on this one:
1. You have to consider that normally, way more people miss greens to the right (I rea that around 80% of golfers regularly slice the ball. I don't know how valid these numbers are), which would put a different light on the results, considering left/right misses were fairly equal.
2. As you mentioned, knowing the hole should erase effects like this
3. Unlike in Ran's photo, where you can't spot the bunker on the left side of the green, which makes the left side look more "inviting", both bunkers are visible in your photo, which could erase the effect aswell

Emilio

[Paul Gray]

An excellent thread.

I can't help but wonder, if indeed the myth has been busted, whether the height of a modern golf shot might not be a factor.

[Nigel Islam]

Top shot bunkers and water hazards always get in my head.  They are similar to forecaddies in that I may have never hit one but they become another unwelcome factor in the formula.

JakaB, that bunker on #2 at French Lick, Ross always gets in my head for some stupid reason.

[John Kavanaugh]

Top shot bunkers and water hazards always get in my head.  They are similar to forecaddies in that I may have never hit one but they become another unwelcome factor in the formula.

JakaB, that bunker on #2 at French Lick, Ross always gets in my head for some stupid reason.

Exactly, I even make it worse by announcing to my playing partners that they are called eight or eighty bunkers.  I know I stole the joke but I love it every time.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Jason,
The way the bunker on Lawsonia's 10th gets into my head is not so much about fearing a top--it's about the way it affects depth perception and my decision about where to try to land the shot, which of course is also dependent on the wind and the conditions.  So you stand there on the tee asking yourself questions that you shouldn't be asking, and knowing also that uncertainty is the enemy of a relaxed and confident swing.

French Lick as mentioned has some great examples of these, and so does Holston Hills.   I've always thought these bunkers were more about the architect trying to deceive rather than strike fear--so I am in support of your study as the definitive test  

[Jon Cavalier]

Jason:

Thanks.  Love this thread.  Really interesting thing to ponder. 

As someone noted above, I think the tendency of golfers to miss to the "opposite" field, coupled with familiarity of the players with the hole, could really be shifting the results.

What you would really need is not merely a control hole, but a bunch of golfers unfamilar with the setup. 

Statistical flaws aside, great thread.

Jon

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason,

I actually kind of like the method.  Agree a control would make it more scientific and accurate. Also agree that given how much more the misses tend to be right, perhaps that bunker does over correct for at least some and have them aim left.  Just not sure.

It also occurs to me that while all the GA guys had this theory (and others) I don't know of any real world measurements to say they really worked, or didn't, even way back when.  I think I postulated this recently concerning the MacKenzie Lido hole, for instance.  And, we have evidence (in the form of the Tillie tour in the 30's and Mac's thoughts/designs later, such as ANGC featuring only 30 or so bunkers) that even the architects themselves had some value engineering thoughts on the value of such bunkers well away from the greens.  Is it possible even they weren't sure of how well they worked in deception?

Perhaps the biggest real world test of whether these particular bunkers serve enough useful purpose to be maintained all these years is the fact that the individual clubs did choose to keep them in the design, seemingly suggesting that the "free market" of 80 years of golfers has determined that they work, somehow.  In the same time period, literally thousands of bunkers were deemed not to have been worth the effort to keep where they are!

[Tom_Doak]

It also occurs to me that while all the GA guys had this theory (and others) I don't know of any real world measurements to say they really worked, or didn't, even way back when.  I think I postulated this recently concerning the MacKenzie Lido hole, for instance.  And, we have evidence (in the form of the Tillie tour in the 30's and Mac's thoughts/designs later, such as ANGC featuring only 30 or so bunkers) that even the architects themselves had some value engineering thoughts on the value of such bunkers well away from the greens.  Is it possible even they weren't sure of how well they worked in deception?

Jeff:

I've often had a similar thought ... whether some architects ever go back and watch people play certain holes to see if they work like they were planned to work.  Mostly, we don't have much time for that.  I think I've only ever spent a couple of hours watching one hole at any one time.

I would love to see Jack Nicklaus [or any professional player/architect] just sit and watch a day's worth of golfers play one of his more severe holes.  I think they would be shocked at how people bugger them up, although their only conclusion might be that average golfers are horrible, and you can't design for them.

[Nigel Islam]

It also occurs to me that while all the GA guys had this theory (and others) I don't know of any real world measurements to say they really worked, or didn't, even way back when.  I think I postulated this recently concerning the MacKenzie Lido hole, for instance.  And, we have evidence (in the form of the Tillie tour in the 30's and Mac's thoughts/designs later, such as ANGC featuring only 30 or so bunkers) that even the architects themselves had some value engineering thoughts on the value of such bunkers well away from the greens.  Is it possible even they weren't sure of how well they worked in deception?

Jeff:

I've often had a similar thought ... whether some architects ever go back and watch people play certain holes to see if they work like they were planned to work.  Mostly, we don't have much time for that.  I think I've only ever spent a couple of hours watching one hole at any one time.

I would love to see Jack Nicklaus [or any professional player/architect] just sit and watch a day's worth of golfers play one of his more severe holes.  I think they would be shocked at how people bugger them up, although their only conclusion might be that average golfers are horrible, and you can't design for them.

Tom,

I think what you are describing is Mr. Fownes at Oakmont.

For some reason I think Jack probably in his playing days felt the same way that a poor shot should be punished. There is a story about the 6th hole at Valhalla where the members were complaining about the severity of the redesign. Jack's response was apparently, "How many of you are scratch golfers?" When nobody raised their hands he responded, "Well then take your bogey and move on." While in principle this makes sense, the reality is that severe holes lead to many more others than bogeys.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Yes, and it had to be even harder in those days, with train travel, etc.

I just saw a speed of play study, which I may have posted here a week ago, but bears repeating:

On a typical 160 yard par three there are:

4 first shots
3 second shots
1 third shot

All before putting.  I would gather there would be an average of 2.25 or higher putting, meaning a medium difficulty hole, which the USGA says should be played by a foursome in 12 shots, actually takes 17, or close to 50% more than envisioned when we design the holes.

Obviously, that would grow exponentially when we go to par 4 and 5 holes.  I HAVE measured lost balls on my courses.  On one course, averaging 70 yard wide corridors, one of four tee shots (on average) find the woods/native grasses.

Of course I have made that point here before. While this group loves to discuss the good and the hard, for most courses, if form follows function, then gca types designing for tour pros or low handicappers first, and accommodating others later is probably a mistake.  I think the back tee first mentality still prevails.  I know we went to designing the stick routings from the back tees a long time ago, but more for the fact that if we didn't, the real estate seemed to reduce our hole length.

But, even features are really, IMHO, not conceived for average guys first, at least by most of us, certainly not by tour pros dabbling in design.

But, even that is a little off point. More relevant to this discussion is whether the average play EVER does much other than line up towards the pin, even when hitting the fat part of the green may be a better play.  And, how do perimieter weighted irons, distance aids, etc. contribute to the reduction of strategy, presuming the average golfers really were smarter back in the day (and I am not presuming that....with the information age, magazines, internet, etc. you would think today's golfers MIGHT think through strategy more, or at least be exposed to it.  But, not sure exposure translates to much actual action.

[JMEvensky]

Jeff, wouldn't designing for the guy who can't hit a 70 yard wide corridor be just as foolish as designing for a PGAT player? Do architects really have to be mindful of each extreme?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - interesting post, and (to Jeff's post just now), this struck me too: "On one course, averaging 70 yard wide corridors, one of four tee shots (on average) find the woods/native grasses." It reminded me that I play with all sorts of average golfers -- but one of the things we have in common is that we're pretty sane and realistic about the quality of our shots. Not a single golfer alive would blame anyone or anything but himself for missing a 70 yard-wide fairway (or even a fairway that's 60 yards wide, or even 50 yards wide). The only time I ever hear someone say, disparagingly, that "this is a tight golf course" is when the total width -- i.e. fairway plus rough -- is less than about 45-50 yards wide. In other words, no one complains about a course being too tight unless missing that 45-50 yards means that his ball in the woods (and likely lost) -- and even then, the guys I play with tend to blame themselves. On your other point about aiming for the fat part of the greens -- as average types don't think about that very often (though i try to more and more), mostly because from certain distances we're just as likely to miss the fat part right or left as we are the pin -- and so again, I rarely hear golfers complaining about that (or about bunkers around the green), as we know that the fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves. 

Now 8-12 perched greens per round is another story...

[Tom_Doak]

I would gather there would be an average of 2.25 or higher putting, meaning a medium difficulty hole, which the USGA says should be played by a foursome in 12 shots, actually takes 17, or close to 50% more than envisioned when we design the holes.

...

More relevant to this discussion is whether the average play EVER does much other than line up towards the pin, even when hitting the fat part of the green may be a better play.  And, how do perimieter weighted irons, distance aids, etc. contribute to the reduction of strategy, presuming the average golfers really were smarter back in the day (and I am not presuming that....with the information age, magazines, internet, etc. you would think today's golfers MIGHT think through strategy more, or at least be exposed to it.  But, not sure exposure translates to much actual action.

As to your first point, that is why I spend so much of my time on site looking at the various recovery shots from around the greens ... because the majority of golfers will be playing one (or more ).

But, I don't think your last point is relevant.  Building a course with optional strategy is still going to make the course more interesting for many players.  If it doesn't change how some approach their shots, that doesn't mean it's not worth doing ... in fact, we get to punish those golfers for not paying attention. 

I do think the approach has changed some over the years.  In the old days golfers seemed more willing to play for Colonel Bogey's score, instead of insisting they should have a tee from which they can theoretically reach every green in regulation.  If they are 11 handicappers [like me] they may be able to reach all the greens, but they are still going to miss half of them, so why do they mind it so much if there are one or two holes that are out of range?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

The answer of course, is that it depends on the course.  On a bell curve, we probably have the 20% championship courses we need, and maybe too few aimed at beginners or aging baby boomers, where the "interest" may be too far from the tees, etc.

I agree with TD that many things that make courses worthwhile for a small % of players (and probably a moderate amount for any given feature...as noted, every golfer will notice something different) is generally worthwhile.  I agree with making it more interesting, but more and more, shy away from the word "punishment" since missing the green is generally punishment enough.

If few notice, but many add strokes, its a feature I consider carefully before adding.  The same goes, as noted, with all those fairway options.  I have seen numerous holes where one or other option seems under used, and thus over maintained, and then eventually eliminated after time.  At this (and most) stages of time, we need to consider all that width, features, etc. on whether they provide enough pleasure to enough folks to make it worth inclusion, even at the risk of a course that will be less than top 100.  (in most cases)

[Frank Giordano]

Jeff,

You obviously think that far too much consideration in course design is given to those 1-10% for whom a true "championship" course, with all the features, constraints and penalties that term implies, is both relevant, challenging, and even enjoyable.  (I wonder sometimes if the champion caliber players -- tour pros, PGA pros, low single-digit folks -- seek enjoyment as a primary objective.  Do these folks always play for the fun of the game?)  I agree, and that champion caliber player has over the past few decades become the tail that wags the entire dog-gone golf industry.

I know you fellows can't tell a client what's in both the best interests of the game and of his particular business, unless you have a most enlightened and altruistic client.  It seems to me that what Pete Dye has done and Tom Doak is doing at Goat Hill represents the chance to educate the golf course developer, at no expense and risk to any particular developer.  That is, donate your services on a pro bono basis, and build something truly relevant to the masses who continue to play the game for the fun of it.  Donate, give an example of what golf courses must become if they are to be relevant for those who love the game, wish to continue enjoying it, but are not members of the affluent, leisured class. 

I know that asking professionals to give their services away for free violates what most of us believe about the free-enterprise, capitalist system.  But I also know that those committed chiefly to the capitalist system don't give a fig for the endurance of golf, and will find some other place to park their investment money as our game gets stuck in the deep woods.  Look at what the unbridled capitalism of the club manufacturers alone has done to our game!

Perhaps a couple of examples of what designers see as the way forward for our game -- a way so valuable that they'd sacrifice a fee or two -- can have the corrective influence that people like you and Doak and Young seem so to desire.  If anyone has the clout to take the lead, you and some of your peers sure do.  Finding a developer, whether private or, more likely,  in the public domain, shouldn't be a great problem.  I'd love to see such an experiment undertaken; the product, given your, your peers, and your associates' talents, should open plenty of eyes and even perhaps contribute to a turnaround, in a sustainable direction, for our game and the industry that has too often, consciously or not, worked to sabotage it.

[Mark Pavy]

I think Langford went a bit too far with the bunker in question on 10. It's 239y par 3 with trouble left, right and over the back. Do you really need a bunker 60y short that obscures the landing area for a lot of golfers?

You can't see the ball land off the tee on 1,2,4,5,6,8 and you follow that up with the same feature on a par 3? Not much imagination if you ask me.

[Nigel Islam]

What's interesting is most real good players I have played with don't have an issue with playing it forward for the sake of pace of play and enjoyment of the lesser players in the group, it's the lesser players that want to play further back. Hence the fascination with "championship" courses.