What's the most difficult shot for a low-hcp/pro to play and how would you design......

[Thomas Dai]

What's the most difficult shot for a low-hcp amateur or pro to play and how would you design......to ensure that this difficulty is reflected in a hole or course?


Atb

[Tim Fenchel]

Getting a long iron or fairway metal to get to hold a green. Which is why you saw the craziness of the Par 3 8th at Oakmont.


With today's hybrid's...this is no longer difficult. Therefore...there is no answer to this question.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, It better be reflected in only a hole or two!!
Otherwise, I would be "one and done" with that course as I would walk off muttering at just how hard and NOT fun it was....


My take if I was a GCA: I would design courses to fun and not to be hard. I dont want to play Carnoustie, Kiawah (Ocean), Butler everyday. I want to play Cruden Bay, Shoreacres and Kingsley!!


But, TD, I will answer your question nonetheless:


1. High fade of over 200 yards.
2. 40-60 yard uphill shot over hazards or obstacles to a blind green.

[Jason Topp]

Dave Pelz had some interesting drawings of approach shots for professionals compared with higher handicap amateurs.

Pros tended to hit the ball the correct distance (a bit longer for a left miss and a bit short for a right miss for a right handed player).   Amateurs tended to miss short.  This suggests to me that a greens that are deeper than they are wide might provide for a challenge to the best players while providing some breathing room for higher handicaps.  A wide front portion of the green and a narrow back might provide a bunch of options depending on the day. 

I am not sure how well this works in practice.  I have found deep narrow greens to be difficult for everyone.

[William_G]

long bunker shots to greens

design narrow fairways with all sand surrounds

and implement 20 MPH wind

[John Connolly]

To hit putts hard enough on slow greens.


So I'd stimp greens at 9.

[Ryan Taylor]

10+ years ago I would have said the low spinning bump wedge to a back pin with a back to front sloped green. However, it seems like the PGA Tour players have shallowed out their wedge swing and are imparting less spin thus making the challenge easier. The Pro V1X spins a lot a less then the Tour Balata and Professional so that may have something to do with it as well.

[Don Mahaffey]

#10 Rivera. 

Versions of this hole that require half shots to a firm green that slopes away from some of the lines of play.   

Give a pro a 50 yd shot slightly down hill and down wind with a back pin on a firm green and trouble long, and you'll see them standing next to the ball with a club in each hand.

[Jeff Taylor]

Just have them play Yale.

[James Brown]

Lots of different tee shots and approach shots that really require working the ball both directions, especially into the wind. 

[jeffwarne]

To hit putts hard enough on slow greens.


So I'd stimp greens at 9.

we have a winner
throw in slope, a real winner.


slope that green away from the player, where run out, judgement, experience, sense of conditions,spin and trajectory control,curve control (for a green sloped sideways rather than away),
and....wait for it..... the occasional bit of randomless....... is involved, and you really have  a test for better players


Everything else(water,sand, rough, narrow fways,OB) just plays into their hands and makes the  long handicap player miserable

[Bruce Katona]

1. The chip from a tight lie we saw at The Open.


2. A chip from a grass greenside bunker - much easier for the high handicapper as their is grass under the ball to help them scoop it up.  The inconsistency of the lie and release for the better player gives them fits.


3. Any shot with more than 1 option - the more you make them think, the more fun the outcome for those watching.

[Tim Gallant]

To hit putts hard enough on slow greens.


So I'd stimp greens at 9.

we have a winner
throw in slope, a real winner.

Not sure about this. Weren't Royal Troon's greens stimp'ing at 9 and we had two major tying rounds, and a winner at -20?

[RJ_Daley]

Regards the resistance to scoring features at Royal Troon, I think we have to look at the whole field.  Only a couple of very talented players were 'en fuego' and most of the field were perplexed.  But, besides the lower stimp, greens and surround slopes, mineshaft bunkers in key places, blind shots, gorse and the like, there was the wind.  Can't hardly design wind... 

I'd say my idea would be along the lines of Don and Jeff with the stimp lower like around 9, and greens and surrounds with combination of some having some high variable texture rough (not just green, high and lush) combined with many greens surrounds with tight mowed hummochs and hollows for runaway balls leaking off greens, and of course interesting yet sensible slopes on greens.  Also, a few with fall-in bunkers with greens mowed to the bunker edges.  Then, with tournament pin positions, some tempting but dangerous short sided options to those bunkers and lofted tight runaway hollows can cause approach dilemmas.  As for length, I'm thinking that length demands off the tee are not primary, as the first holes of Royal Troon demonstrate.  Even iron off tees that had short and deft approaches tells me, it is all about the greens, and surrounds challenges, with clever use of slopes. 

Maybe a shorter version would be, make topography count.

[Pat Burke]

One of the most effective ways to challenge tour pros is to have shallow greens set on Angles.


The new equipment is great,mbut players hitting balls insane distances, also have bigger gaps in clubs.  Shallow greens with difficult recovers put a premium on distance control which may be the biggest separator among the best players.


2 cents worth

[jeffwarne]

To hit putts hard enough on slow greens.


So I'd stimp greens at 9.

we have a winner
throw in slope, a real winner.

Not sure about this. Weren't Royal Troon's greens stimp'ing at 9 and we had two major tying rounds, and a winner at -20?

Found out who the best 2 players were that week though:)

[Kyle Harris]

Long shots from uneven lies.

[Mike Hendren]

I so wish I knew.

[Joe Zucker]

1. High fade of over 200 yards.
2. 40-60 yard uphill shot over hazards or obstacles to a blind green.

I strongly agree with #2.  I would add the caveat that the green be above eye level so the player can't see where he has to land it.  It's a very tough shot to judge and with it being uphill.  Hitting a shot with proper spin is more difficult, so it becomes more of a running shot requiring touch.


Any tour pro could still knock it close more often than not, but it would certainly be tougher than a bunker shot from the same spot where the distance the ball flies is the only variable to consider.

[Tim Gavrich]

Better golfers tend to grate against variety, so I'd make sure there are a few holes where they'll be confronted by "in-between" shots - tricky half-wedges, long approaches. Tour pros hate 250-yard par threes. Make them play a 250-yard par three. But don't overdo it, because designing primarily for better players is what has produced a lot of expensive and mediocre golf courses.

[Andrew Buck]

Getting a long iron or fairway metal to get to hold a green. Which is why you saw the craziness of the Par 3 8th at Oakmont.


With today's hybrid's...this is no longer difficult. Therefore...there is no answer to this question.

Geoff Ogilvy indicated that 8 was almost a "breather" as it was one of the few holes where a slightly imprecise shot around the green wouldn't lead to a big number.

[Carl Nichols]

1. High fade of over 200 yards.
2. 40-60 yard uphill shot over hazards or obstacles to a blind green.

I strongly agree with #2.  I would add the caveat that the green be above eye level so the player can't see where he has to land it.  It's a very tough shot to judge and with it being uphill.  Hitting a shot with proper spin is more difficult, so it becomes more of a running shot requiring touch.


Any tour pro could still knock it close more often than not, but it would certainly be tougher than a bunker shot from the same spot where the distance the ball flies is the only variable to consider.

This was my reaction, and I immediately thought of #17 at Columbia Country Club in Chevy Chase, MD.   From the back tees, it's probably a 310-yard hole, playing from an elevated tee with a forced carry (over water) of about 220 yards to a fairway that's about 40 yards long, leaving a typical shot of approximately 40-80 yards to a severely uphill green.  Because of the water, it's very hard to lay back to 80 yards, so most people end up with very uphill and blind shots of 40-65 yards or so.   Also, while the green isn't tiny, it also doesn't have any backstops, so it's very easy to go long.


So why not just hit driver?  Because missing the green brings high grass and long bunker shots into play -- I think there are five or more bunkers on the hillside, and the shots from there (or the high grass) are really hard.


Here's a picture that makes the fairway look longer than I think it plays--

[Tom_Doak]

One of the most effective ways to challenge tour pros is to have shallow greens set on Angles.


The new equipment is great,mbut players hitting balls insane distances, also have bigger gaps in clubs.  Shallow greens with difficult recovers put a premium on distance control which may be the biggest separator among the best players.


2 cents worth

Pat is answering the question well, but it's the wrong question for a designer, really.  Most of the prescriptions voiced here would result in a course that's neither fun or playable for amateurs, but this suggestion was the one that most exaggerates the gap between pros and amateurs.


In my world, we should be trying to MINIMIZE the gap between pros and amateurs, because it's become so large. That will also make the better players work harder to cash in on their superior skill.


The way to minimize the gap is to try and design holes that reward low-trajectory shots, as opposed to high-trajectory.  Low-trajectory shots are easy for a certain set of amateurs to hit, because it's all they have ... but they are a very hard shot for pros whose swing speed naturally produces a higher ball flight.


It is not easy to build holes that reward low-trajectory shots, but it can be done.  Greens like the 11th, 12th and 17th at St. Andrews are great examples.

[David_Tepper]

"Tour pros hate 250-yard par threes."

Tim G. -

Some how I am thinking all golfers hate 250-yard (or even 225-yard) par threes.

DT

[Joe Sponcia]

Great topic!


I just played Pinehurst #2 for the first time a month ago and would say to design the greens in a similar fashion.  I've never been so nervous to hit an 8 iron to a green (I'm a 3 handicap).  The greens reminded me of a diamond with multiple little areas that cannot be seen with the naked eye, but learned through repeated play.  Best surrounds.  Best chipping areas.  Highest penalty for missing.  The most my brain has ever locked up over a short chip to a barely missed green.


As I have said and believed in the past...if being on the 'correct' side of the fairway, per the days pin doesn't matter than the design is weak.  Again, at Pinehurst, being on the correct side is CRITICAL to score.  The most I've ever encountered.  Even at my home course (Holston Hills), both Ross-designed, being on the correct side is helpful but not CRITICAL on some holes.  In other words, you still have a decent chance at par.  At Pinehurst, this is just not the case.


Incidentally, I just played in the club championship at Lookout Mountain.  It's a Raynor with completely different topography and much more severe sloped greens.  The course is 600 yards shorter and 5 shots harder than Holston, easily.  Some pins simply can't be accessed without a high degree of skill, luck, and years of play.  The winning score for two days was -2 with the toughest pins I could have ever imagined and very slick greens.  Camargo (Raynor) hosts the US Am qualifier every year.  The course is maybe 6600 yards and routinely -2 to -3 qualifies.  You can hit every fairway at Camargo and Lookout and still score like crap, the greens are that tough to learn.  You rarely fire at pins, rather over time, you learn the angles.