Forced carries and air game - why all the hatred?

[Jason Thurman]

I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!

George, I think you're missing the true interest of a Hell's Half Acre hazard for a stronger player. We often look at design as though everyone hits the shot they planned all the time. And yes, for a strong player who hits his drive down the middle long and true, a Hell's Half Acre hazard doesn't serve much purpose, at least in 2015. It might have been more relevant in the hickory days.

For a strong player, the Hell's Half Acre becomes an issue when he misses his tee shot. Maybe he knocks it into the rough or under a tree, or maybe he mishits it and comes up well short of his typical drive. But strong players often fail to hit the shot they planned, and when they do, a Hell's Half Acre hazard becomes compelling, particularly because they occur on par 5s.

Good players know that they need to take care of business on par 5s. They expect par to be routine and birdie to be a real possibility. Therefore, when they miss a fairway and catch a poor lie on a Hell's Half Acre hole, things get interesting. If they lay up short of the hazard, they're unlikely to reach the green in 3. Of course, they can generally manage an easy bogey and maybe even a scrambling par. Those options, though, are pretty depressing for someone who arrived at the tee with birdie aspirations. The tendency is to try to get across at all costs, even if it requires a 200+ yard carry from a funky lie.

Some of my worst decisions in matches have come on holes with a Hell's Half Acre hazard, where I couldn't resist the temptation to try to get across and leave a short iron or wedge approach instead of laying up to set up a long approach. On those days, if I'm playing a weaker player in a match, the Hell's Half Acre can inspire me to make just the stupid decision that opens up the door for that weaker player to steal the hole by simply making serviceable contact after I stupidly leave my second in the hazard. On the other hand, some of my most exciting moments on the course have come when I pulled the carry off in spite of the poor decision and turned the tables on the hole after a poor tee shot.

[George Pazin]

I believe it is only thrilling for an incredibly small percentage of golfers, imho, not nearly enough to justify how many will be screwed by it. If I'm confronted with a 140 yard carry with my driver - or 3 wood, 3 iron, whatever - I am going to have one of two results: 1) of course I made that carry, it's a joke with this club or 2) I can't believe I mishit my driving club that badly. The answer to "Can I make this carry" is either of course or son of a bQ@#$!

Now, with an iron, on a par 3, then it becomes more of a real decision. Do I take an extra club and risk going long? Do I try to ignore the carry and just play my normal 140 yard club? Etc, etc.

I think what I really don't like about the 100-150 yard carry off the tee on a par 4/5 is that you are potentially penalizing someone doubly who already has been screwed by virtue of a complete mishit. It's like a double penalty - or triple, when you add in the penalty strokes.

With the par 3, you look at your result and are either satisfied (maybe even thrilled) or you think, I guess I chose poorly. When you duff a tee shot, you didn't choose poorly, you just didn't execute a simple shot (and I'd argue the reason for that is simply lack of play/practice). I think it's okay to ask a difficult question, I don't think it's okay to ask someone a simple question if the result is almost disastrous! When you duff a tee shot on a driving hole, you already penalized yourself, the architect doesn't need to add to that.

Hope that makes sense, at least somewhat. It's obviously colored by my own erratic game, but call me crazy, I think there are a lot of casual golfers like me.

Addendum: I do think a 250 yard carry with a driver is thrilling, it's just aimed at an incredibly small demographic. Those guys need to find their thrills elsewhere!

[George Pazin]

George, I think you're missing the true interest of a Hell's Half Acre hazard for a stronger player.

You are correct, sir. You have an amazing affinity for finding the weakest elements of my arguments and then exploiting them. I would ask that you stay away from my wife, sir!

The vast majority of my argument - maybe all of it, I gotta think more about it - is with forced carries off the tee shot. I don't have the same problem with forced carries on 2nd or 3rd shots, such as a Hell's Half Acre or a Hell Bunker or something like that. To me, those are design elements that affect one's choices, not merely execution elements that punish a lack of practice or playing (see my previous post).

[Joe Sponcia]

JM,

Fair point, my wife is a legitimate 38 handicap and would hit a 9 iron to cover that distance (90 yards).  Anything in front of her besides light rough or fairway and it is a crapshoot.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!

So we should dumb down the course for everyone else ?
Should we remove every architectural feature that challenges the beginner, senior or women who lack length ?

Let them take lessons, practice and get better as opposed to disfiguring the course to cater to the lowest common denominator.

And, what's the penalty for not negotiating the 90 yard carry ?
A bunker shot from a bunker lacking a steep face.
It's not a big deal.

And that's why all the fuss.

To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling.

George,

You can't have it both ways.
You can't embrace the forced carries at #'s 15 and 16 at CPC and advocate for the removal of 90 yard carriers.

A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot.

The game wasn't intended to be easy, nor was it intended to accomodate poor shots without consequences.

And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life.

By the "casual golfer" do you mean the person who doesn't take lessons, doesn't practice, doesn't play much and doesn't strive to improve their game ?
Fook em.

I don't want to play a sport on a field of play that's been modified to accomodate every "casual" golfer attempting to play the game.

I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.

Isn't the degree of interest and pressure of that carry......... "situational"

Imagine that you're only 90 yards from the green on # 13 or # 15 at ANGC.

So, you'd find nothing thrilling or exciting about that shot ?  ?  ?

Please.

Every shot in golf is thrilling and exciting if you're a golfer, especially those little 90 yard carriers at # 13 and # 15 at ANGC.

But maybe that's just me!

It is.

[Andy Troeger]

The vast majority of my argument - maybe all of it, I gotta think more about it - is with forced carries off the tee shot. I don't have the same problem with forced carries on 2nd or 3rd shots, such as a Hell's Half Acre or a Hell Bunker or something like that. To me, those are design elements that affect one's choices, not merely execution elements that punish a lack of practice or playing (see my previous post).

The irony is that a lot of forced carries on tee shots occur because the architect is trying to get away from a swamp or low-lying part of the property near the tee because it should make the carry easier and/or because the front tees can be moved up or across the hazard. The issue with these types of carries to me is (1) how often are they used? and (2) what is the penalty for not making the carry. If they create a re-tee situation, that's not a great solution. If, like at Pine Valley, you just have a tough second shot out of the sandy areas (in most cases), then I think it works pretty well.


I coached at a course where the 18th tee was on a bluff and the shot carried a river before heading back to the clubhouse as a par five. It was a simple shot, but every year I would top it into the river exactly once over the course of the season. Drove me nuts. The most memorable case was when I was tied with our other coach, who had never beaten me at that point. I re-teed, got my 4th about 30 yards in front of the green, and holed the shot for par to tie the match.

[Doug Siebert]

The overwhelming number of forced carries in all of golf are not tests at all, other than to lousy golfers. A 150 yard carry might have been a test when Pine Valley was originally designed, or even when woods were actually wood and mishits didn't travel nearly as far, but now it's merely a barrier to entry for beginning or casual golfers.

For Pine Valley, that strikes me as entirely appropriate. For most other courses, not so much... Many forced carries today are the top shot bunkers of our time.

This is of course not at all true for forced carries on par 3s, which I don't mind. It just struck me that Ivan's post wasn't really addressing those.

I agree completely.  Back in the day a 150 yard carry off the tee would have tested those who carry a well hit ball 200 yards, unless they were a proficient player who rarely mishit the ball.  With everyone swinging a 460cc driver a 150 yard carry merely serves to limit accessibility to women, seniors and beginners.

Now if that 150 yard carry is off tees that those golfers "shouldn't be playing" one can give it a pass, and there's certainly something to be said for courses with a reputation as a strong test of golf like PV or CPC including such a thing.  But in a typical course, I think you're 100% on the mark calling them the top shot bunkers of our time.  They serve no purpose but to beat down golfers who are already at a disadvantage due to lack of distance or who are just learning the game.

[Doug Siebert]

Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,

The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.

Why all the fuss ?

I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?

The point of a 90 yard carry is twofold.

1     To make you think and establish tactics
2     To execute your tactical plan and shots

Merry Christmas, Pat!

Ditto

While you're right of course that this 90 yard carry in the middle of the hole does influence strategy, it is still a much larger burden for the same group I mentioned in my previous post - women, seniors and beginners.  Like I said I give PV a pass because it has never claimed to be accessible to all golfers. But consider a random muni with a similar hole.  You can argue that carry is strategic, but it disproportionately affects lesser golfers while being something good players can essentially ignore.

That's the problem, good players aren't really influenced by it.  Let's say you have a 90 yard carry (bunker, water, long grass, doesn't matter) that is 250 yards off the tee.  So you and I will need to club down somewhat to insure we don't go in it.  So fine, grab a club that goes 230, maybe 240 if you're feeling greedy, and swing away.  If we should happen to hit a terrible shot that goes only 180, well that's not really a concern, it is still only a 160 yard carry which is easily within our means.  A golfer who carries it only 150 on their best possible shot without a tee, and wants to avoid having to carry it more than 120, has very little margin for error when approaching such a carry.  That's not strategy, that's the kind of test a good player will never face...what's the point of doing that to these golfers?

The worst shot in golf is the 50 yard layup, hit by all too many seniors or women because they're too far away from a carry hazard to feel comfortable trying to hit over it, so they have to hit a ridiculously short layup.

I'm fine with forced carries for people playing the tips, and to some extent from the regular tees.  But the senior/women tees should use them sparingly.  Maybe have a pond in front of their tee that requires a 50 yard carry once or twice in a round, since everyone enjoys the feeling of accomplishment.  If they really want to be tested, well I'd argue maybe they shouldn't get hung up on labels and shouldn't play the "women's tees" or "senior tees" just because they're women or are seniors.  20 years ago I had a girlfriend who played the men's tees when I'd play with her, and she wasn't a college level golfer.  She was a college level athlete though, and could hit it a long way, and didn't like dinking it around from the short tees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,

The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.

Why all the fuss ?

I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?

The point of a 90 yard carry is twofold.

1     To make you think and establish tactics
2     To execute your tactical plan and shots

Merry Christmas, Pat!

Ditto

While you're right of course that this 90 yard carry in the middle of the hole does influence strategy, it is still a much larger burden for the same group I mentioned in my previous post - women, seniors and beginners.  Like I said I give PV a pass because it has never claimed to be accessible to all golfers. But consider a random muni with a similar hole.  You can argue that carry is strategic, but it disproportionately affects lesser golfers while being something good players can essentially ignore.

Not when you take into consideration that women, seniors and beginners aren't supposed to par the hole.
And, since when should golf courses be designed for beginners ?
As to seniors, I take exception to that concession.

If someone can't carry the ball 120 on demand, should we dumb down the entire course for them ?

Should Streamsong, Bandon, Bethpage and others have their architecture sanitized.

It's that type of feature that attracts golfers.
Golfers tend to be a delusional bunch.
They tend to think that they can hit shots on demand that are beyond their ability.
Yet, that's part of the attraction of the game, trying to accomplish something that might be beyond our reach.

Eliminating difficult or challenging features because it might cause stress to women, seniors and beginners is a surefire way to dumb down the architecture to the point that courses become mundane, absent character and challenge.

I was once a beginner and so were you and everyone else that plays the game.

I didn't want to play a course designed for "beginners", I wanted to play Winged Foot, Baltusrol and all the venues that held big tournaments.
I wanted to "test" my game even when I was lousy.

You're like the folks advocating no outs, no winners, stay at bat until you get a hit.
That's not what attracts golfers to the game.
The challenge, the difficulty is part of the inherent lure of the game.

That's the problem, good players aren't really influenced by it.

No, you're wrong, they're influenced by it more than the others, because they must properly place their drive and execute a perfect second to traverse the hazard.  


Let's say you have a 90 yard carry (bunker, water, long grass, doesn't matter) that is 250 yards off the tee.

Let's take a concrete example, not one predisposed to your conclusion.
Let's take Pine Valley's 7th.
From the back of the front tee it's 155 to reach the fairway, 280 to the front of HHA  

So you and I will need to club down somewhat to insure we don't go in it.

Nonsense.
That's a poorly designed hole, one you chose to fit your conclusion.
Let's stick with a real hole, # 7 at PV.

While the best players will throttle down, I won't, I need to hit my best tee shot in the hopes of being able to carry my second.
It's a perfect hazard that places a premium on my drive and second shot.  

So fine, grab a club that goes 230, maybe 240 if you're feeling greedy, and swing away.  If we should happen to hit a terrible shot that goes only 180, well that's not really a concern, it is still only a 160 yard carry which is easily within our means.

Again, your example is bogus because it's configured to reach your predetermined conclusion.
Let's stick with # 7 at PV. 

If I hit it 230, I've got a 140 yard carry, but, 230 isn't a bad drive for a senior or a beginner.

A golfer who carries it only 150 on their best possible shot without a tee, and wants to avoid having to carry it more than 120, has very little margin for error when approaching such a carry.

Okay, so you're chosen someone who's lousy, we get it.
Trust me, he won't be invited to play PV.
And at 150, he hasn't made the fairway.
But, let's say he hit it 155 and is in the fairway.
He now has 125 to reach the front of HHA.
Let's give him some margin and say he hits his second 115 and now has a carry of 100 yards.
If he can't carry 100, he doesn't belong playing that course.

But, let's say he doesn't or can't.
What's the big deal ?
He'll enter HHA, take a club and hit the ball until he gets out.
He's not entitled to a par, or a bogey or a double on that hole, why are you advocating for the removal of a great feature so that a hole can accomodate women, seniors and beginners ?

How does that hole play for the 1, 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 handicap ?

And, how is he going to play # 12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC ?
# 2, 7, 8, 15 and 16 at CPC ?

PV, ANGC and CPC all have been played by women, juniors and lots of seniors.
I haven't heard any complaints from anyone about those course being so hard for them that the features should be eliminated.

You're one of the advocates for wimps, non-golfers, no talent players who don't belong on a golf course.

Most clubs have junior programs where the kids have to pass a rule test and a playing test before they're allowed on the golf course.
I've always maintained that the regular members should have to pass the same two tests. 


That's not strategy, that's the kind of test a good player will never face...what's the point of doing that to these golfers?

Stop whining for those who shouldn't be playing that course, that hole in the first place.
Boo hoo, they hit it in the HHA and had to go play it.
What, is that a tragedy.
What's the big deal.

Pine Valley is a "golfer's" course.
It wreaks of "golf"
It's not for women or beginner, and probably half their membership are seniors..

Look at the carries on # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.

Should we remove all of the great features and carries to please a minority at the expense of the enjoyment and challenge to the majority ?

The worst shot in golf is the 50 yard layup, hit by all too many seniors or women because they're too far away from a carry hazard to feel comfortable trying to hit over it, so they have to hit a ridiculously short layup.

Baloney.

And, what you don't realize is, if that's the way they have to play, it's reflected in their handicap and they tend to be ferocious competitors.
They're not supposed to eagle, birdie and par holes, they're supposed to make big numbers, but, you want to make everything easy for them at the expense of those more likely to be impacted by the HHA.

I'm a senior and amongst the guys I've been playing with are guys in their mid 80's down to their low 70's.
One fellow, who's always been very short, tacts his way around the course quite cleverly, ditto the 85 year old
And, one of the worst golfers in our group had his career round at PV years ago.
He rose to the occassion, sucked it up and played great.

I'm fine with forced carries for people playing the tips, and to some extent from the regular tees.  

But the senior/women tees should use them sparingly.

Stop the nonsense.
If they're that bad they should take up bowling or chess.

Every time I play Pine Valley or Winged Foot or other iconic and difficult courses, most of the guys playing are old guys, seniors.

What you don't get is that seniors don't want to move up, seniors don't want hazards removed for their benefit.
Seniors want to play the same course they've been playing for 40 years because to do so is to deny the aging process. 

Maybe have a pond in front of their tee that requires a 50 yard carry once or twice in a round, since everyone enjoys the feeling of accomplishment.  


So now you want to put ponds requiring 50 yard carries in front of two greens, but, oppose one HHA feature.
Let's weigh the penalty for failure to negotiate each hazard.
Once your women, senior, beginner hits into that pond, they're doomed.
Now the fear of failure causes them to lose control, grip the club tighter, swing faster and soon, they're out of golf balls.

And you think that's a "preferred" hazard to an HHA ?

If they really want to be tested, well I'd argue maybe they shouldn't get hung up on labels and shouldn't play the "women's tees" or "senior tees" just because they're women or are seniors.

Golf tests you irrespective of what tees you play from.
The test just gets a little sterner as you move back..

As a Senior, I won't be playing the senior tees until I'm in my 80's............ maybe.

Stop trying to eliminate the challenge that attracts golfers to the game.
Stop being a wussy.
"Golfers" are a hardy breed.

Next you'll be advocating for the removal of the cross bunker on # 17 at Streamsong Blue.

Do you really think that Bandon and Streamsong is where beginners belong ?
 

20 years ago I had a girlfriend who played the men's tees when I'd play with her, and she wasn't a college level golfer.  She was a college level athlete though, and could hit it a long way, and didn't like dinking it around from the short tees.

My daughter was the same way.   WHY ?
Because they wanted a sterner challenge, they wanted to improve and as a young person you don't improve by playing from the women's and senior's tees.
You improve by testing your game, by putting demands on your game, by forcing yourself to hit "shots" on demand, not by having the features that enhance the challenge removed.

[George Pazin]

I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!

So we should dumb down the course for everyone else ?
Should we remove every architectural feature that challenges the beginner, senior or women who lack length ?

Let them take lessons, practice and get better as opposed to disfiguring the course to cater to the lowest common denominator.

And, what's the penalty for not negotiating the 90 yard carry ?
A bunker shot from a bunker lacking a steep face.
It's not a big deal.

And that's why all the fuss.

To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling.

George,

You can't have it both ways.
You can't embrace the forced carries at #'s 15 and 16 at CPC and advocate for the removal of 90 yard carriers.

A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot.

The game wasn't intended to be easy, nor was it intended to accomodate poor shots without consequences.

And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life.

By the "casual golfer" do you mean the person who doesn't take lessons, doesn't practice, doesn't play much and doesn't strive to improve their game ?
Fook em.

I don't want to play a sport on a field of play that's been modified to accomodate every "casual" golfer attempting to play the game.

I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.

Isn't the degree of interest and pressure of that carry......... "situational"

Imagine that you're only 90 yards from the green on # 13 or # 15 at ANGC.

So, you'd find nothing thrilling or exciting about that shot ?  ?  ?

Please.

Every shot in golf is thrilling and exciting if you're a golfer, especially those little 90 yard carriers at # 13 and # 15 at ANGC.

But maybe that's just me!

It is.

There are so many straw men in this that it may blow away if we get a stiff breeze...

Where did I say anyone should dumb down the game? I just don't believe a 90 yard carry to the fairway accomplishes anything useful, with the singular exception of wetlands type restraints that Andy mentions above. Again, I don't believe that's what Ivan was getting at in his opener, but that's neither here nor there.

I can't have it both ways? Says who, you? I can't like forced carries on demanding par 3s while feeling joke 90 yard carries to the fairway serve no real purpose in the game? It's a personal preference, for reasons that I detailed earlier and will summarize here: forced carries on par 3s serve to test both decision making and execution, while 90 yard carries off the tee merely serve to punish execution.

And try telling that guy who topped the tee shot at Oakmont DURING THE US AM PLAYOFF FOR MATCH PLAY that he just needs to invest in some lessons or practice. The beauty of Oakmont is that it accommodated his complete mishit and allowed him to have a fighting chance, whereas many other "great" courses wouldn't have.

I have no problem with thoughtful forced carries. I just happen to believe that many in today's game are not even remotely thoughtful. That's my opinion, there's no contradiction within it, no matter what you say.

I'll let you green it up and have the last word!

[cary lichtenstein]

I always loved forced carries as it put a premium on hitting the shot the distance required, but I guess after reading thru this thread, it is too penalizing for too many players.

[Paul Gray]

As a fierce opponent of all things aerial, I will just contradict myself, at least with regards to forced carries, by repeating a story for the hundredth time this year:

I played in a stableford event earlier in the year and was paired with a couple of older gents that played off 25 and 26 respectively. We have a number of forced carries at our rather old school links, although it should be said that only one of those carries ia truly terminal if you fail to hit the tee shot the required length. During the course of the round they explained to me that they only competed now when the event was for points because sometimes they couldn't score on a hole on account of a carry and medal play was therefore beyond them. I explained that it was one area of the course I'd like to see altered. I shouldn't have bothered! So far as they were concerned, the course wasn't there to be worked around them. If they were taking a couple of shots via gorse just to get near my drive, well done me. After all, as one of them pointed out to me at one point, they needed a 6 for 2 points where I needed a 4.

Despite carding a 79 (and it could and should have been worse) I passed an extremely pleasant and refreshing 3 hours (and not much more) with two guys that saw those carries the way I did as a 12 year old.

It's just a little tale worth considering before completely dumbing down everything.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Nice story Paul, and typical of the attitude I experience all the time from high handicappers - particularly older guys whose abilities are on the wane.

Stableford competitions are far preferable to these guys. They love the challenge of a forced carry but not the terminal consequences to their card that they risk in a medal round. The handicapping system enables them to compete from the same tees on a level field.

Do Stableford competitions find much if any favour in the States?

[Patrick_Mucci]

There are so many straw men in this that it may blow away if we get a stiff breeze...

Where did I say anyone should dumb down the game? I just don't believe a 90 yard carry to the fairway accomplishes anything useful, with the singular exception of wetlands type restraints that Andy mentions above.
Again, I don't believe that's what Ivan was getting at in his opener, but that's neither here nor there.

George,

You've started, far too early, on the Christmas egg nog.

Your position totally ignores topography and the significant role it plays in the design of a golf course.

Many architects, such as Donald Ross, when using the available topography, often employed a high-low-high configuration with their tee-fairway-green design.  That configuration often requires forced carries on the drive and on the approach.

Ross also placed a premium on carries off the tee by introducing "top-shot" bunkers.
Bunkers meant to test one of the most basic skills required of a golfer, GETTING THE BALL AIRBORNE.

I can't have it both ways? Says who, you?

Yes, me, Farky Needleman and Tommy Nacarrato

I can't like forced carries on demanding par 3s while feeling joke 90 yard carries to the fairway serve no real purpose in the game?

"No Purpose"
Yikes, put down the egg nog.
I think you just don't see, understand or appreciate the purpose.
Would it be your position that a lay up shot on your second shot, or the third shot into # 13 and # 15 at ANGC serves NO purpose ?

And, when did the focus of this thread revert to 90 yard carries off the tee.
But, since you want to discuss carries off the tee, let's continue to discuss carries in the context of Pine Valley.
Most holes require carries of 130 to 150 yards or more off the tee.
Once again, the architect is presenting you with the most basic of tests, getting the ball airborne.
Some carries, especially on the par 3's, are do or die carries, with disaster looming for the tee shot that fails to negotiate that carry.

But, forced carries aren't confined to tee shots.

Starting on # 2, the golfer is faced with a daunting forced carry, over bunkers, to an uphill fortress like green.

Daunting carries to the green are also encountered on # 7, 8, to a lesser degree on #'s 9 and 11.
To # 12, 13, 15, 17 and 18.

And, on # 18, a surprising number of golfers hit a lay up second shot, that provides them with a 60 to 120 yard shot into the green.

Pine Valley demands execution of one sort or another on every hole, with the consequences for failure, moderate to severe.

And, one of those tests meant to challenge the golfer's ability, mentally and physically, is found on # 7 where the golfer must execute three successful carries.  From the tee, the other from the fairway across HHA and a third to a green surrounded by a moat like bunker.

There is nothing frivolous about the carries at PV.

Lay up second shots are found on many par 5's.
The four at ANGC quickly come to mind.
As do # 6 and 18 at PBGC.

It's a personal preference, for reasons that I detailed earlier and will summarize here: forced carries on par 3s serve to test both decision making and execution, while 90 yard carries off the tee merely serve to punish execution.

You're contradicting yourself.

They're the same thing.

You don't think that failure to negotiate the 90 or so yard carry from the front tee on # 10 at PV isn't meant to punish execution ? ? ?

The only difference between # 10 and some of the other holes is that the choice of club is different.  9-iron vs driver.

And try telling that guy who topped the tee shot at Oakmont DURING THE US AM PLAYOFF FOR MATCH PLAY that he just needs to invest in some lessons or practice.

He failed to execute under pressure.   Should he be rewarded for such an horrendous shot ?
It happens to everyone and that feature is an integral part of the architect's repertoire

The beauty of Oakmont is that it accommodated his complete mishit and allowed him to have a fighting chance, whereas many other "great" courses wouldn't have.

You may want to rethink that statement.
There are a good number of holes where a failure to carry off the tee penalizes the golfer.
11, 14 and 17 come quickly to mind.

I have no problem with thoughtful forced carries.
I just happen to believe that many in today's game are not even remotely thoughtful.

So which ones at Pine Valley, Shinnecock, Seminole, NGLA, GCGC, CPC, PBGC, MPCC, Pasatiempo and Merion aren't thoughtful ?

That's my opinion, there's no contradiction within it, no matter what you say.

I understand that, I understand that neither facts nor logic will alter your opinion

I'll let you green it up and have the last word!

See my comments above

Merry Christmas

[William_G]

I would like to start this thread that may sound like I am trolling the respectful members of the board. But instead I am just trying to get more knowledge and bring to life a very important question of forced carries and air game, of which there seems to be a consensus here it is bad and the sign of poor golf architecture.

I  honestly believe that while golf is a great game and playing low flying shots is a ton of fun, it gets incredibly more spectacular when you can bomb the high balls. It looks better to the spectators and to the player alike. After all any hack can top the ball, and produce low flying nothing shots. Thats all that the beginners are doing when playing golf. And all they dream about is to learn how to get the ball airborne. I remember the pure excitement I felt after reaching my first 200 yard carry with the driver. It was almost like a first kiss, or something. And I didn't want my five iron to fly 140 yard carry to then roll for another 30 yard. I always wanted it to fly the full 170-180 yards carry.

I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.

Thus, why would you bash the air game all the time? I want those heroic carries that make you feel goosebumps before hitting the shot and fill your body with pure exhilaration after you achieve your goal. A good course should have  those shots as well as the holes that will give you options to play a low-flying roller, especially in some conditions.

Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?

I realize there are some elderly gentleman who can not hit the ball long way physically, but you have forward tees for them. For the rest, why not man up and go for it? Golf is a multi-faceted sport and it is interesting when it is variable and requires all type of shots - long and short, high  and low, rolling and with backspin. What I am missing?

PS: sorry if I offended somebody with this post it wasn't my purpose.

PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.

very sad perspective 

some things can't be fixed, LOL

wow 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would like to start this thread that may sound like I am trolling the respectful members of the board. But instead I am just trying to get more knowledge and bring to life a very important question of forced carries and air game, of which there seems to be a consensus here it is bad and the sign of poor golf architecture.

I  honestly believe that while golf is a great game and playing low flying shots is a ton of fun, it gets incredibly more spectacular when you can bomb the high balls. It looks better to the spectators and to the player alike. After all any hack can top the ball, and produce low flying nothing shots. Thats all that the beginners are doing when playing golf. And all they dream about is to learn how to get the ball airborne. I remember the pure excitement I felt after reaching my first 200 yard carry with the driver. It was almost like a first kiss, or something. And I didn't want my five iron to fly 140 yard carry to then roll for another 30 yard. I always wanted it to fly the full 170-180 yards carry.

I am out of shape and slow by nature person, my technique is far from tour caliber but I can achieve 250 yard carries on my best drives and drive around 230 in the air consistently. So I believe, if I can do this than anyone can.

Thus, why would you bash the air game all the time? I want those heroic carries that make you feel goosebumps before hitting the shot and fill your body with pure exhilaration after you achieve your goal. A good course should have  those shots as well as the holes that will give you options to play a low-flying roller, especially in some conditions.

Isn't poor technique and lack of physical conditioning the reason for hating the air game? Why not go visit your teaching and/or fitness pro then?

I realize there are some elderly gentleman who can not hit the ball long way physically, but you have forward tees for them. For the rest, why not man up and go for it? Golf is a multi-faceted sport and it is interesting when it is variable and requires all type of shots - long and short, high  and low, rolling and with backspin. What I am missing?

PS: sorry if I offended somebody with this post it wasn't my purpose.

PPS: I have recently played the Rustic Canyon and while I agree it is a good golf course it seemed too easy and unspectacular for most of the time. For a better player (which I am not), if will definitely be boring and if you put a tour event on it, I won't be surprised to see many scores in the 59-62 range.
The courses like Barona Creek and Maderas seemed much more complete to me.

very sad perspective 

some things can't be fixed, LOL

wow 

Ah yes, the golf club atlas version of political correctness strikes again!

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

Please. Whenever I hear the phrase "political correctness" thrown around, IN ANY WALK OF LIFE, I just take it to be an attempt at damage limitation from those that once represented the status quo and are none to happy about progress, whatever that means. History never judges anyone well for throwing that phrase about.

[Mike_Young]

Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game.  IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time.  So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both.   

[JMEvensky]

Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game.  IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time.  So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both.   

Honda grip?

[Mike_Young]

Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game.  IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time.  So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both.   

Honda grip?

A honda grip is when one get's his right hand (for a right handed golfer) up under the club and it works like a guy turning the throttle on a motorcycle...have you never heard that?

[JMEvensky]

A honda grip is when one get's his right hand (for a right handed golfer) up under the club and it works like a guy turning the throttle on a motorcycle...have you never heard that?

 . Never heard that one before--I should've guessed.

[Paul Gray]

Ivan,
I haven't read the other responses so this may have already been said:
The HATRED comes from those that really can't play the air game.  IMHO the really good players can play both air and ground game and choose which best suits a particular shot at a particular time.  So often you see some slapdick with a honda grip rolling the ball around the course and telling you he is playing the ground game and how great it is...hmmmm...ask him if he can play any other shot...most likely not...AND so often the good player that can play both decides the air game is more precise...so I think the ground game is great and needs to be an option but even with it being an option it may not be the shot of choice for one capable of playing both.   

Maybe. I've heard an awful lot of hatred though from intellectually challenged average golfers because "my ball won't stop on the green."

As you said, good golfers can play both. Unfortunately, one of those options is more akin to darts than snooker. I prefer snooker.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I'd have to contest your preference in the realm of practicality, if not necessity.

I recently played Streamsong and the course was very Fast and FIRM.

Play to the greens was anything but darts, but, in order to reach a good number of the putting surfaces an aerial approach was required.

In addition, the ground game can only function properly if the terrain permits it.

Examples that many might identify with are the 4th on the Blue and perhaps the 7th and/or15th on the Red.
Approaching # 4 Blue on the ground is impractical if not impossible.

In addition, the ground has a greater chance of deflecting my shot away from the intended target, versus air.

In most instances, I can be far more precise with an aerial shot than I can with a ground shot.

Under windy conditions a modified combination of both can be effective.

[Mike_Young]

Maybe. I've heard an awful lot of hatred though from intellectually challenged average golfers because "my ball won't stop on the green."

As you said, good golfers can play both. Unfortunately, one of those options is more akin to darts than snooker. I prefer snooker.

Paul,
The guys I play with  wish to play the best they could and become better and better.  If you begin to play with those guys you will lose if you just play snooker.    However this site provs there is a very small element of the game that enjoys just walking, hitting the ball and finding it and hitting it again.  For that guy the hype and talk of the ground game etc may be all he needs. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul,

I'd have to contest your preference in the realm of practicality, if not necessity.

I recently played Streamsong and the course was very Fast and FIRM.

Play to the greens was anything but darts, but, in order to reach a good number of the putting surfaces an aerial approach was required.

In addition, the ground game can only function properly if the terrain permits it.

Examples that many might identify with are the 4th on the Blue and perhaps the 7th and/or15th on the Red.
Approaching # 4 Blue on the ground is impractical if not impossible.

In addition, the ground has a greater chance of deflecting my shot away from the intended target, versus air.

In most instances, I can be far more precise with an aerial shot than I can with a ground shot.

Under windy conditions a modified combination of both can be effective.

Truer and more-apt words were never spoken. On this topic at least, Patrick has it exactly right.