[John Connolly]

My earlier thread on this attempted discussion bombed. Probably too complicated and/or impractical a set up. So I'll try again.


To make golf fun for average golfers, is it good design to give them width off the tee and ever-increasing challenges as they approach the green? An easy handshake which progresses to a tight squeeze as they work towards more lofted clubs and the putter? When I play the golden age courses, it sure seems to be that way. I think of a place like Shoreacreas or Cal Club. Too simplistic an analysis? Too much of a cliche?

[Thomas Dai]

This one John?
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64558.0.html
atb

[John Connolly]

Yes, that one.

[John Kavanaugh]

People become more frustrated when they fail at the easy shots and aren't rewarded for the difficult ones.

[Jason Topp]

It all depends. 

I prefer variety. 

[Sean_A]

I don't think there is a completely ideal design because the terrain for every property is different.  I think the best thing to shoot for is variety.  I like short 3s, short 4s, long 4s and short 5s the most, but I would be disappointed if a course only featured these type of holes.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

If smartly contoured green sites do indeed 'work backwards' so as to create preferred angles/lines of play (and related risk-reward equations), then no good/great golf hole is actually 'easy' off the tee; you're still being asked/invited to both make a specific choice and to execute a particular shot aimed at the most advantageous result. The tee shot on a good/great golf hole might be 'forgiving' (especially to the mid+ handicapper) in that it doesn't directly and/or unduly punish a safe choice or a mediocre shot, while at the same time not making it 'easy' for the good golfer to succesfully pull off a bolder choice. Most of the just-decent courses I play manage to achieve the first part of the equation -- but only by failing to achieve the second part.
Peter

[John Connolly]

Peter,


You're getting at what I'm alluding to (however obliquely - me, not you). That for golfer enjoyment, the tee shot is ideally not psychologically stressful - that a wide expanse be offered - yes, with a preferred position for optimal angling in but for his experience, the tee shot is his oyster. Exhilarating, full of blast-away potential that's FUN off the tee. But the problem changes over the next shot - fun is no longer defined by infinite possibilities - the golfer does NOT want that. He WANTS a sterner challenge ("calculus" in my abandoned thread). From 150 yards, the fret of the angled green, fronting bunkers or perched green with surrounding short grass is the contemplation he's after. And when the green is reached, or the runoff area is his fate, again, the challenge of a masterfully created green complex is a problem he's willing to deal with. In short, the psychological stress should be "scaled" on a hole. From blissful ignorance off the tee to all-hands-on-deck near the green.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golf already has a participation trophy. It's called a Hole-in-One.

[Thomas Dai]

The option to hit it just about anywhere from the tee but to achieve the best position for the approach shot into an interesting/challenging/evil green the player had better be in the correct spot sounds okay to me.


Hit is miles but off-line from the tee and you get a harder next shot. Hit it from the tee into the most appropriate spot and you get the easiest next shot. Playable by the bomber, playable by the plotter, playable by the novice/begineer, no lost balls, speed of play etc .......


atb

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sorry this is just too simplistic. Even if it was once true when the gutty was hit with a hickory it ran hard once it hit the green and a premium really was placed on the angle of approach. This much less so with the aerial game we play today.
 
Today MacKenzie’s Teignmouth offers enough width to cope with the winds you get 500 feet above an estuary, but I quickly got bored with the tee shots. I was slapping it around and wasn’t even forced to sort out the faults I had that day. Even worse I could see the odd bunker that had been filled in. The greens were interesting but it didn’t make for a complete experience. Doak 4 (when I’m in a good mood and think of the lovely views.)

[Jeff_Brauer]

First, I am in the variety camp.


Second, allowing wild drives via ultra wide fw works less good than it used to.  It allows long players to approach much shorter, with more spin, somewhat negating angles, no?  I have designed reverse slope greens on medium par 4 holes, and the strategy (much like the high cut into Shinny's Redan hole) is to just hit down for more spin.  Presumably, that is the genesis of the "first cut" at the US Open and Masters, to create a bit of doubt in the ability to hit a high spin shot.


If you want to more or less equally challenge accuracy and finesse, at least a few narrow fairways should be part of the equation.  Favors the straight hitter, provides variety for all. 

[Carl Johnson]

Ideal or not, this was Donald Ross's thinking as I understand it.  Easy to get into the fairway, but not such an easy approach to the green if you were in the "wrong place" for the pin that day.  I like it.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the problem with this thread is the word "ideal".  Different people have different ideals.


Replace it with the word "practical" and you have a better discussion.

[John Connolly]

The thesis here is that, if practical, width off the tee with preferred landing zones followed by a more demanding approach gives for a better golfing experience than does a narrow fairway, whether it be due to trees or limitations in land, followed by an uninspired approach or layup for a par 5. And by better "golfing experience," I mean more fun. In Tom Doak's ongoing "subtle tee shots" thread, there are nearby posts (Replies 26 and 29) which make the point for me far better than I am doing myself. The first is a series of wonderful photos from Old Macdonald by Jon Cavalier demonstrating the wide open, but not strategically deficient, tee shots. These moments on the course are highly prized. The very next photo, by Kalen Braley, of the 16th at Pasatiempo, further exemplifies the point. Open tee shot with landing zone preferences, followed by trepidation when the golfer confronts that dastardly 3-tiered green fronted by treacherous sand. I believe THAT'S what golfers are after. Width and strategy off the tee followed by a stern test for the approach. If they fail the test off the drive, all is not lost. And if they fail the test coming into the green, there remains still a chance at redemption. Narrow tee shots? Maybe there's good architecture there, I wouldn't know. But they're no fun - of that I'm more confident.


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,64546.25.html

[John Connolly]

Found a Harry Colt quote (thank you Shack) that gets at it nicely:


Although the fairway may be made as broad as space allows it, in will be highly desirable to play on to some particular portion of it, in order to simplify the next stroke.H.S. COLT

[Kalen Braley]

The more I think on this concept the more it makes sense.


You see for hacks like us, golf is really a lot like Shawshank Redemption, in that its all about "hope".  You hope you to play well, you hope your swing and timing is there, you hope not to embarrass yourself, you hope to break 90, etc.


On a more micro level, each tee shot starts out with this hope.  You hope you can hit the fairway, you hope you can get your approach somewhere near the green (not hitting the green in regulation isn't really a big deal for high cappers because we only pull it off maybe 4-5 times per round).  So when you have a wide fairway, aka one that is relatively easy to hit, after your tee shot you still have hope.  And even with a difficult, smallish green, even if you miss the green you still have hope because you think I can still get it up and down.  And even when you only chip to 20 feet, you still have hope that you can make that par putt.  And then you two putt for bogey and you still have hope that with a few pars mixed in you can still break 90.


Compare and contrast that to a tight fairway with deep rough.  You hit your tee shot, end up in the rough 10 yards off the fairway with perhaps a tree you have to now negotiate...and you know that even your best effort won't get you on the green and there's a good chance you'll still have a lengthy 3rd shot....and that hope is already gone after one stroke.


Just a different perspective that I know most on this board aren't too familiar with...

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


Understand your thoughts...in hockey this would be called a delayed penalty.


Just don't see why we should reward the same game strengths for all 14 long holes, nor ignore nature - if a hole runs through woods, nature suggests it be a narrower hole, no?

[John Connolly]

Kalen,


Yes, your post nails down what I'm getting at - the psychology of the game and how different states of mind at different points in the hole's playing the architect must deal with to deliver a memorable experience.


Jeff,
A test of driving could still be offered through width - a particular play off the tee pays dividends for the one to follow. So if it's precision you're after as an architect, "disguise" it plain view. Speed slots, reverse cants, downhill lie, better/worse angle in, etc.. Two things are then accomplished:
1 - you've tested the player's ability to be accurate and
2 - you've given a better golf experience when the player sees an expanse in front of him.
Yes, of course, you're right - when cutting through forest, use the trees to best advantage but if you make the test too narrow, it just won't be as much fun. By all means leave the flanking forests, but make the landing zone view from the tee as broad as can be reasonably allowed.

[Kalen Braley]

John,


A hole like #13 at Ballyneal would be an example of this.  All the width in the world off that tee but certainly many lines that can be taken with thier advantages and disadvantages. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


You mention of "the psychology of the game".  I think your mistake is thinking every golfer thinks like you do.....Guys with different game strengths of length, finesse and accuracy each think differently.  While the accurate guys (who Flynn said should be rewarded first) lick their chops at the narrow hole that gives them an advantage of penalizing the wild player, not just rewarding him a bit less for his wild distance. 


The finesse guy with "all the shots" probably likes the fairways you describe okay and fashions shots to get there, just as you imagine.  The long, somewhat wild guy doesn't care, because approaching from 100 yards is always better than from 150.


There is something to be said for the occasional tree line or RTJ style bunkering at the LZ.


Whenever someone proposes that all holes should be designed a certain way, I think back to what Jim Colbert told me when the players formed a committee to help Pete Dye to revise TPC.  One of them told him, "That the mound in the middle of the first green was a fine idea.....but he liked it so much he did it 17 more times."

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think the problem with this thread is the word "ideal".  Different people have different ideals.


Replace it with the word "practical" and you have a better discussion.

And once you insert the word "practical" as has been done, you have to consider the cost of irrigating, mowing, and managing all those acres of fairway vs. more acres of rough.  We are in a turf reduction world, so even if the idea was unanimously agreed as "perfect" it probably wouldn't happen.

[Joe Hancock]

I think the problem with this thread is the word "ideal".  Different people have different ideals.


Replace it with the word "practical" and you have a better discussion.

And once you insert the word "practical" as has been done, you have to consider the cost of irrigating, mowing, and managing all those acres of fairway vs. more acres of rough.  We are in a turf reduction world, so even if the idea was unanimously agreed as "perfect" it probably wouldn't happen.

Agreed, but things might be a lot different if fairways weren't stimping at 9.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


Are we sure we aren't extrapolating the courses we see on TV into a much bigger percentage of courses than their really are?  I don't play many courses where fairways stimp a 9......

[John Connolly]

John,


You mention of "the psychology of the game".  I think your mistake is thinking every golfer thinks like you do.....Guys with different game strengths of length, finesse and accuracy each think differently.  While the accurate guys (who Flynn said should be rewarded first) lick their chops at the narrow hole that gives them an advantage of penalizing the wild player, not just rewarding him a bit less for his wild distance. 


The finesse guy with "all the shots" probably likes the fairways you describe okay and fashions shots to get there, just as you imagine.  The long, somewhat wild guy doesn't care, because approaching from 100 yards is always better than from 150.


There is something to be said for the occasional tree line or RTJ style bunkering at the LZ.


Whenever someone proposes that all holes should be designed a certain way, I think back to what Jim Colbert told me when the players formed a committee to help Pete Dye to revise TPC.  One of them told him, "That the mound in the middle of the first green was a fine idea.....but he liked it so much he did it 17 more times."

I understand your point but I am not thinking about this concept in terms of what another player may hope to gain when playing against another  - rather, how does he feel when he looks out over his tee shot? Surely even the short but accurate player, when playing alone let's say, would prefer a wider, more expansive, visual, no? I doubt any architect, when given 200 acres, looks for ways to narrow the tee shot with "stuff." Although you may wish to make it appear as if it's narrow. If you only have 100 acres to work with, I'd get it. But the IDEAL surely must be width with strategic lanes of play. And my other point is important here because it goes hand in hand with the psychology of the tee shot: players enjoy the discomfort of a challenging approach and putting experience when they're looking at it from the fairway - or even from a poor lateral position. That's my entire point - the experience is best with width off the tee (with lateral or distance ideals for strategy) and a head-scratching approach. Dumb downed approaches are as maddening as tree-lined chutes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()