DECADE vs. Golf Course Architecture

[Mike_Clayton]

Scott and Lou are great follows on twitter, interestingly a while back Scott claimed the only reason to play golf was to shoot the lowest score possible and seem to struggle to understand why someone would play if they weren't concerned about score.

If you are only concerned with score, the decade system is the logical thing to follow but there's many reasons to play other than score and why wouldn't you try shots with high risks, the joy of them coming off is hard to beat and if they don't you can always try again another time!

SF and I have had that discussion on twitter. I find the, "If you're not scoring, you're not playing golf" view completely perplexing.
I find walking, hitting shots and playing great holes enough to satisfy me most days. And, as Ian Baker-Finch once said to me of his game "I just detest shooting 77"
Funny game - the vast majority who play only dream about shooting 77.

[Steve Lang]

   DECADE...

Distance, Expectation, Correct Target, Analyze, Discipline, Execute,

where's the fun in that?

[Tim Liddy]

The golf world needs more Mike Claytons.

[JESII]

If you are only concerned with score, the decade system is the logical thing to follow but there's many reasons to play other than score and why wouldn't you try shots with high risks, the joy of them coming off is hard to beat and if they don't you can always try again another time!

But then that really eliminates the risk doesn't it Padraig? If the result doesn't matter, there's no risk and no reward.


I think people on this site equate a focus on score with a drab, non-entertaining round of golf.


Sure, we all enjoy a nice walk in the park, and a golf course can be a wonderful walk. To suggest that trying to develop strategies and hit shots to score better is against the spirit of the game is completely upside down to me. I see it as a disservice to the architect and superintendent if you're not trying to make a score.


Being a good playing companion is a separate issue and can be achieved whether we're out for a walk or trying to play golf.

[Jay Mickle]

Scott and Lou are great follows on twitter, interestingly a while back Scott claimed the only reason to play golf was to shoot the lowest score possible and seem to struggle to understand why someone would play if they weren't concerned about score.

If you are only concerned with score, the decade system is the logical thing to follow but there's many reasons to play other than score and why wouldn't you try shots with high risks, the joy of them coming off is hard to beat and if they don't you can always try again another time!

As I read this I am about on my way out the door to play Southern Pines with 8 clubs and 9 temporary greens. I am going for the walk and to see the progress on the Kyle Franz renovation. Time well spent with no score possible.
SF and I have had that discussion on twitter. I find the, "If you're not scoring, you're not playing golf" view completely perplexing.
I find walking, hitting shots and playing great holes enough to satisfy me most days. And, as Ian Baker-Finch once said to me of his game "I just detest shooting 77"
Funny game - the vast majority who play only dream about shooting 77.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We all know the "scorecard and pencil" subset of golfers have been around since Mac? wrote about them.  The only difference is, they have more statistics to help them out.  In general, while there is art and science to nearly endeavor, over centuries, science is gaining and art is falling back (i.e., no more bloodletting in medicine, (thank God!)  And, so it is with gca.


I have pointed out before that for all the reverence of Golden Age designers, most of what they wrote was for publicity, and I'm not sure we see a whole lot of their ideas in their work, or it is toned down.  For instance, there was only 1 of Mac's prize winning channel hole built (at Lido) and I guess that is probably because when he got back to the "real world" that few owners would pay for five fairways on a hole, when so many seem to muddle through with only 1.  Even 2 fw options is enough to create strategy.


There was never any scientific research to show that golfers ever played the angles they wrote about being so important, so we really don't know if their designs functioned as intended back then.  And, since I have been alive and golfing, most players only try to hit the center of the fw.  It makes sense.  Challenge a hazard with your least accurate club (driver for most) or get in the fw and challenge a bunker with a 5 iron (or for today's long hitters, a 9)  Most will take the second option.


I believe a designer who opts to ignore modern data in favor of sentimentalism is probably not thinking things through as well as they might.  Now, I have to admit, I'm not quite yet sure just how to incorporate Fawcette's thinking in my designs, but I have been thinking about it.

[Padraig Dooley]

If you are only concerned with score, the decade system is the logical thing to follow but there's many reasons to play other than score and why wouldn't you try shots with high risks, the joy of them coming off is hard to beat and if they don't you can always try again another time!

But then that really eliminates the risk doesn't it Padraig? If the result doesn't matter, there's no risk and no reward.


I think people on this site equate a focus on score with a drab, non-entertaining round of golf.


Sure, we all enjoy a nice walk in the park, and a golf course can be a wonderful walk. To suggest that trying to develop strategies and hit shots to score better is against the spirit of the game is completely upside down to me. I see it as a disservice to the architect and superintendent if you're not trying to make a score.


Being a good playing companion is a separate issue and can be achieved whether we're out for a walk or trying to play golf.

Jim, is it not also possible to try and score lower on certain individual holes and not worry about the overall score for the round?

[Michael Felton]

I remember reading "Pro", Frank Beard's diary of the year 1969 on Tour.  He explained that to get to -1, if you made a bogey, you needed to make 2 birdies (or an eagle, I guess) to get there.  Again, not much new here.  If there is, it's that today's Tour Pros may as well wait until the 4 par 5 holes to go for birdie, hope for one or two putts from the middle of the green drop, and that's how you get to 66-68.  Beard didn't have that luxury of reachable par 5 holes, or certainly not as many of them.

The whole point of DECADE is that the ball doesn't always go where you're aiming it. If you figure out that your margin from the right edge of the green is let's say 8 yards and the pin is 4 yards from the edge, then you aim it four yards left. If you hit it right there and the right distance then you're 12 feet away, which is eminently makeable. But the key point is you're not always going to hit it four yards left of the flag. Sometimes you'll be 12 yards left of the flag, sometimes you'll be four yards right of the flag and sometimes you'll be right next to the hole.


I think we all instinctively know that it's not smart to aim at the Sunday flag on 17 at Sawgrass. Miss it five yards right and you've hit a pretty good shot, but you're about to play your third from the drop zone. What SF did with DECADE is put an ideal figure on where you should aim it so that you optimize your score. He has enough data that shows that you should do that even if you need to make birdie. You won't make more birdies on that hole aiming at it than you will aiming 7 yards left of it. But you'll sure make a lot more doubles that way.


Then it comes down to how good you are at hitting it to where you're aiming it. Tiger at his best was very good indeed at hitting it where he aimed it, but he aimed it relatively conservatively considering that. Scott analyzed his final round in the 2019 Masters. I think there was one flag on 5 that was center of the green, but on the other 17 holes, I think 15 of his approach shots landed on the fat side of the green and 2 landed on the thin side. Those 2 were relative misses, but both wound up in good spots. If he'd been aiming more aggressively he'd have been in trouble with both of them.


As to using it against them, that's going to be pretty hard. I think there are a handful of ways to do it. One that Tom mentioned is to make it so that missing the green is better than being on the green but in the wrong spot. Another, which I think would work against relatively unprepared people (like me for example) where you make it look like you're aiming safely, but you're really not. What I'm thinking here is having a wide false front to the green that you can see from the fairway, then have the main part of the green hidden from sight, but have it skewed to where the false front is, so the flag looks middle of the green, but actually isn't.


Another thought would be the use of slopes. Slopes within the green that can take the ball away from where it lands could mess with the targeting. The idea behind DECADE's numbers is it's how safe is worthwhile relative to the penalty of missing short side. If you have a green shape that funnels the ball away from the middle to one side, then the math will tend to favor being more aggressive on that side. Lastly, mess with the subconscious - one of the holes on the course I grew up on is a mid-length par 4. The ground all slopes right to left and there is a deep bunker left of the green. The right of the green is open space and the result on your approach is it's hard not to miss right. But to the right are some slopes and hollows that make the chip from over there not easy and then the green slopes away from you too. Another hole that does the same thing and more likely well known is 13 at Pine Valley. End of the world left and short of that green. Nothing but fairway out to the right, with a relatively long iron in your hands. Not an easy green to hit and then the chip from that right fairway is devilishly difficult. Basically it creates conflict in your mind. You know that optimally you should be aiming it at some point, but the voice at the back of your mind is making you want the ball to go somewhere else. That's when it's hard to aim at the optimal spot.

[JESII]

Padraig,


100%!


That's really my point. If you take on a shot, or hole, with not a care in the world, it's my opinion that you are discrediting the work put in to present you with an interesting and challenging hole.


If you make an 8 on a hole, it cannot ruin your day (and that of your playing companions), you simply tee up on the next hole looking to play it well.


The perception on here about the "Card and Pencil" mentality is more about a particular player being inconsiderate and disrespectful of others. It's not really about understanding and appreciating architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sans reams of data to back it up, Jim Colbert played that way.  He did have an idea about how much he thought his shot would curve.  Colbert went through about the same math as you did. If he felt he had an 8 yard miss window, he would certainly aim at least 8 yards left of the bunker.  The strategic challenge was to gauge how much the wind and green contour would move his shot more or less than his "normal."  And it involved confidence.  The beauty of any green that angled right and sloped down to the right with a hazard right, is that if you play too conservative, you end up with a downhill putt.  That strategy can be used a dozen times in a row and it always works architecturally.


He aimed at, for example, the outside left edge of the green and curved it back to the middle.  In his mind, bunkers on the low side of that shot pattern (in this case the right) were hunky dory, because if he got in them, he merely "overcooked" his fade.  He really didn't care to aim outside the green itself, and thus disliked bunkers on the high side of his shot curve.  And, that is why good players prefer the green targets to angle a bit with the wind, so aiming at the far left edge with wind blowing right was certainly taking a miss left out of play.  And, I watched one of those Brooks/Scott videos where they discussed aiming outside the fw.  They would do it, but the typical play is aim left edge and set up for the fade.


So, again, not much new, Fawcette has added math and a bit more certainty for competitive players.


Of course, architecturally, that also suggests that the "prime" location to hit a tee shot may be on the same side as a lateral or front corner bunker, i.e., with a front right green bunker you actually have more room to miss laterally if coming in from the right side.  Not unlike the typical strategy when OB is down the side, and you tee up as close to it as possible and aim as far away as possible to maximize your miss angle, hopefully to something (about 4 degrees for top players) where hitting it over the fence is impossible.


If you set up for a slight fade, barring a "double cross" a straight ball is about the most you will miss left, so aiming at the left of the target makes good sense.  If there is no hazard over there, maybe aiming outside the green does make sense, especially if the hazard on the right is hard. 

[Tom_Doak]

Padraig,


100%!


That's really my point. If you take on a shot, or hole, with not a care in the world, it's my opinion that you are discrediting the work put in to present you with an interesting and challenging hole.


If you make an 8 on a hole, it cannot ruin your day (and that of your playing companions), you simply tee up on the next hole looking to play it well.


The perception on here about the "Card and Pencil" mentality is more about a particular player being inconsiderate and disrespectful of others. It's not really about understanding and appreciating architecture.

Well you are certainly not disrespecting ME if you’re not trying to shoot your lowest score.


If that were the main qualifier to be a golfer then somewhere between 50% and 75% of people would quit the game.  And I might join them.


“The purpose of life is to be happy.”  - the Dalai Lama.  (Big hitter, the Lama.  Long.). Most people are happy just being out there with their friends in a beautiful setting.  Get over it.

[JESII]

Ha…Get Over It!  Ha.


OK Brooksie

[Tim Martin]

That's really my point. If you take on a shot, or hole, with not a care in the world, it's my opinion that you are discrediting the work put in to present you with an interesting and challenging hole.

Jim-Someone is “discrediting the work put in” if they choose to play the hole the way they want? I’m not buying that.

[Tom_Doak]

As to using it against them, that's going to be pretty hard. I think there are a handful of ways to do it. One that Tom mentioned is to make it so that missing the green is better than being on the green but in the wrong spot. Another, which I think would work against relatively unprepared people (like me for example) where you make it look like you're aiming safely, but you're really not. What I'm thinking here is having a wide false front to the green that you can see from the fairway, then have the main part of the green hidden from sight, but have it skewed to where the false front is, so the flag looks middle of the green, but actually isn't.


Another thought would be the use of slopes. Slopes within the green that can take the ball away from where it lands could mess with the targeting. The idea behind DECADE's numbers is it's how safe is worthwhile relative to the penalty of missing short side. If you have a green shape that funnels the ball away from the middle to one side, then the math will tend to favor being more aggressive on that side. Lastly, mess with the subconscious - one of the holes on the course I grew up on is a mid-length par 4. The ground all slopes right to left and there is a deep bunker left of the green. The right of the green is open space and the result on your approach is it's hard not to miss right. But to the right are some slopes and hollows that make the chip from over there not easy and then the green slopes away from you too. Another hole that does the same thing and more likely well known is 13 at Pine Valley. End of the world left and short of that green. Nothing but fairway out to the right, with a relatively long iron in your hands. Not an easy green to hit and then the chip from that right fairway is devilishly difficult. Basically it creates conflict in your mind. You know that optimally you should be aiming it at some point, but the voice at the back of your mind is making you want the ball to go somewhere else. That's when it's hard to aim at the optimal spot.

It is not that hard to do, honestly.  Half the things that make my courses sneaky hard are things that aren’t in the Slope System manual at all - such as, the slopes on the green won’t let you get close from the right half of the fairway.  Greens where missing on the safe side leaves you an up and over putt.  Etc.


When the four young pros played that exhibition at Cape Kidnappers, without the benefit of a practice round,their approach was too conservative.  They all hedged left with their second shots on the par-5 2nd and 4th, and failed to get up and down on either.  But then on the back nine, Hunter Mahan made a couple of birdies and they all realized, hey, we are playing for a million bucks here, nothing to lose, might as well aim at the hole, and they all shot lights out the last seven holes.  (Mahan shot 30 on the back nine, IIRC.)  Anthony Kim hit the best flip wedge shot I have ever seen at the 14th - even Seve would have been impressed - but he never would have tried it on Tour because if he didn’t land it on like a handkerchief it would have cost him two shots more. 


They can all do that, but most don’t try because 8th place pays a lot better than 9th, so it’s better to be conservative.  It robs us from seeing how good those guys really are.


I remember taking Mike Clayton to Bayside in Nebraska years ago, which has a par-3 kind of like Riviera 6 but more severe, and I said, “Geez, it looks like you could land a ball up around the right side of the bunker and feed it down to that low left hole location,” and it took him two tries to do exactly what I called.  And I’m still talking about it, 19 years later.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think I see what Jim is saying:

Golf course architecture isn't a painting, it's a field of play.

It's a field of play for a game called golf.

The 'game' in the game called golf is to try to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible -- and ideally in fewer strokes than your competitors or opponent.

The better the field of play (ie the better the architecture), the more interesting and challenging and nuanced and strategic and fun is the playing of the 'game'.

That's why, presumably, this very website exists, ie to highlight & celebrate the best and greatest examples of golf course architecture in the world, old and new:

Because the better the golf course architecture the more fully and completely enjoyable is the 'game' in the game called golf.

Now of course, if you don't actually want to play the 'game' that is the game called golf, ie if you aren't primarily concerned with trying to shoot your lowest possible score, and ideally a lower score than your competitors or opponent, that is totally and absolutely okay, and Jim completely understands, and there is no problem with that at all or in the very least.

But then, what are you doing here, on a site dedicated to great golf architecture?

If great gca is meant to best serve the 'game', but that's not the 'game' you primarily want play when you play the game called golf, then why spend your time travelling to and talking about 'great courses' on gca.com?

For you especially, any and all golf courses -- and the work of any and all architects, past and present -- will serve just as well.

All golf courses will 'work' equally the same, because all can serve equally well as a place 'to gather with friends' and spend some outdoor time getting exercise 'in a beautiful setting' (given that beauty is so subjective and so completely a matter of personal taste).

In short: Tom D's architecture-courses will serve just as well and are of the exact same value as Jack N's courses, and a Fazio is as good as a Ross and a Mackenzie as good as a Hills, and an CBM about as good as a RTJ II, and Hanse and C&C and DMK are all exactly the same too.

The 'Golden Age' and the 'Dark Age' and the 'Renaissance' are just made-up marketing b.s., driven primarily by ego and greed.

There's no meaningful difference between them whatsoever, golf courses from various eras. They all allow us the same lovely strolls in the park.

Which may all be the reality and absolute truth of the matter -- but if so, it's been a pretty well kept secret around here for a very long time.

Is that basically it, Jim, or did I put too many words in your mouth?   

[Tim Martin]

It will be a sad day for me when I’m told by an onlooker that I’m not utilizing the architecture to its fullest extent and robbing myself of enjoyment as a result. What happened to “There’s the golf hole. Play it any way you want.” I think a guy named Ross said that.

[JESII]

Tim,


That last point of yours is my point. Hope I didn't say everyone needs to make the same decisions. Just that their individual decision should be focused on getting to the finish line.


I'm not suggesting everyone play a hole the same way, not in the least, but if there's a tee box and a hole with a flag in it, not trying to get from one to the other in as few strokes as possible leaves great deal of the game to the side.


Peter,


Your interpretation is pretty good. I think the main divide here is that people think someone trying to shoot a score has to be dour while I do not. Nor does a big number have to ruin their day. In their experiences, this may be the case, but it's not mandatory, I promise.


If I suggested we play from the 2nd tee to the 13th green, what would you say? How does this fit in with the course as built? Cross country golf is a great game in the off-season, but it doesn't comport for a few reasons.


A golf course can be a really beautiful place to take a walk. During the winter I'll take my dog out on a local course. This is about the most peaceful thing I can do...but it's not playing golf. 


Is someone smashing a ball into the trees to see if they really are 90% air playing golf.

Again...this is a completely separate issue from a player so engrossed in their score that they become bad company. Two completely different things that many of you have conflated, I believe.

[Tim Martin]

Tim,


That last point of yours is my point. Hope I didn't say everyone needs to make the same decisions. Just that their individual decision should be focused on getting to the finish line.

I'm not suggesting everyone play a hole the same way, not in the least, but if there's a tee box and a hole with a flag in it, not trying to get from one to the other in as few strokes as possible leaves great deal of the game to the side.

Jim-Thank you for clarifying.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It will be a sad day for me when I’m told by an onlooker that I’m not utilizing the architecture to its fullest extent and robbing myself of enjoyment as a result. What happened to “There’s the golf hole. Play it any way you want.” I think a guy named Ross said that.

I always wondered about that quote.  The idea of strategy being fun (I think it is) means that gca's, Ross included, tried to position things where ideally, one way is at least slightly more favorable.  (and in reality, Scott Fawcette is just measuring which way is more favorable.)  I doubt Ross intended every hole to be a dart board where you could throw underhand, overhand, etc.  On most holes, a draw or fade is better, at least to certain pin positions and winds.


I had an offline discussion with a former participant here, and the big philosophical question is just how hard do you try to punish the approach shot from the "wrong side" of the fw?  If challenging a hazard on the right is rewarded with a green angling left to that open side, up slope, etc., how should the green be from the other side?  Narrower dimension to stop the ball or enough width to allow you go get to at least the back of the green?  Some backstop contour or falling away from you if approaching from that angle?


I personally believe in the possibility of a shot from a bad angle being successful (at least in attaining the green, and maybe to a lesser degree, even shooting for the Sunday pin.  I sometimes get the impression that many of the am gca's here would tend to go the other way and ONLY reward (rather than more gently reward) a shot to the preferred side of the fw.


Coincidentally, Jim Colbert called me late yesterday to check in, and we discussed this whole thread.  As I alluded to earlier, basically he played that way, aiming upwind side edge of the green, and deciding how much to curve back to the target.  We rehashed some of our favorite gca stories from our collaborations.  Without a prompt, he brought up the old story of when I tried to put a small mound in the middle of a green, and his reaction was, "Jeff, I didn't know you were the best damn golfer in the whole wide world!"  And rehashing the green redos at TPC (He was on the player committee with Jack, Hale, and Ed Sneed)  He told Pete, "I don't mind a mound in the middle of the green once in a while, but you liked it so much you did it 18 times!"


More seriously, while there is obviously room for some of everything, I do wonder why, if even a Tour Pros deflection angle on any given shot is 10% (and he takes half of that out of play with the aiming at outside edge) whether or not the targets themselves ought to be in that size range, as opposed to half that or less, divided by a small bump, ridge, etc.?


Jim went so far as to call the safe middle of the green "the holy land."  He (and other tour pros I know) basically feel it's either "their right" or maybe just that it's the right thing to do to give every approach shot the option of a relatively safe play or being more aggressive towards the corners.  Isn't that the essence of strategy, play safe or be aggressive? 


Just a few other guys who think they know something opinions.

[Michael Felton]

It is not that hard to do, honestly.  Half the things that make my courses sneaky hard are things that aren’t in the Slope System manual at all - such as, the slopes on the green won’t let you get close from the right half of the fairway.  Greens where missing on the safe side leaves you an up and over putt.  Etc.

Hi Tom,


I think what Scott would say is that there are plenty of places where there is a benefit to being one side versus the other of a fairway. What doesn't make sense though is aiming for that side of the fairway. The angle on the second shot on 18 at TPC for example might be quite a bit better from the left side of that fairway, but if you try to hit it there, you bring in far too many doubles from balls in the water for it to make sense. He'd say aim it right edge of that fairway and if you happen to hit it in the far left quarter of your pattern then you get the advantageous approach angle. It happens by accident, not on purpose.


On another note, one of the reasons Tiger was so good was he could hit shots from the wrong side of the hole and stop them. He hit it so hard and high and spinny that it was virtually impossible to put him in a spot where he couldn't make it work. That and he could hook it or slice it 50 yards if he wanted to, so he could make his angle work.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:  your choice of an example there was rigged; pretty much everyone knows not to risk a water hazard for a better line.


I am talking more about holes without water or penalty strokes, just a few modest bunkers and difficulties, and varying angles into a tough green.  My impression is that Scott’s system rates these all as unimportant and just says to aim for the middle of the fairway or the middle of the clearing, when in fact there is a lot of small fractional math to do, that would suggest leaning to one side or the other off the tee to get the better angle.


Not many guys actually hit it like Tiger!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am talking more about holes without water or penalty strokes, just a few modest bunkers and difficulties, and varying angles into a tough green.  My impression is that Scott’s system rates these all as unimportant and just says to aim for the middle of the fairway or the middle of the clearing, when in fact there is a lot of small fractional math to do, that would suggest leaning to one side or the other off the tee to get the better angle.

Neither Scott's system, nor the one he got it from, would say "aim at the middle of the fairway," unless the middle just happened to be in my terms "the lightest colored egg."

Angles generally don't matter much on the PGA Tour… because they can fly the ball and stop it quickly. Angles matter a great deal when the ball is rolling, though.

[Tom_Doak]

Erik:


Angles mattered even for the Tour players at Memorial Park last year, because they had difficulty stopping the ball out of Bermuda rough, and the greens roll off at the sides if you run through.


It was a big adjustment for them from the normal week, and I didn’t think many changed their game plan for the holes once they realized it was a factor, but I’m curious to see if they approach it differently this year.

[Ira Fishman]

If you are only concerned with score, the decade system is the logical thing to follow but there's many reasons to play other than score and why wouldn't you try shots with high risks, the joy of them coming off is hard to beat and if they don't you can always try again another time!

But then that really eliminates the risk doesn't it Padraig? If the result doesn't matter, there's no risk and no reward.


I think people on this site equate a focus on score with a drab, non-entertaining round of golf.


Sure, we all enjoy a nice walk in the park, and a golf course can be a wonderful walk. To suggest that trying to develop strategies and hit shots to score better is against the spirit of the game is completely upside down to me. I see it as a disservice to the architect and superintendent if you're not trying to make a score.


Being a good playing companion is a separate issue and can be achieved whether we're out for a walk or trying to play golf.

Jim,


I have played CPC only once so of course I went for it on 16 even though with my game it is a low percentage shot. But if I played it every day, I am pretty sure I would go for it except if the wind made it impossible. I don’t think the MacKenzie and Hollins would feel discredited; they probably would be looking down and chuckling.


At less of an extreme example, there are plenty of short 4s where I should hit a wedge for scoring reasons but the ground is so cool that I will play a bump and run because it is just pure fun.


Ira

[JESII]

And you do that because you think it's possible for the ball to get onto the green if you hit a reasonably well judged shot. You're trying to get the ball into the hole. If it were water, would you try to skip it across the water?


Ira, on those short par 4's with really cool ground contours; imagine you're playing some sort of event where holing out does matter. On the day, there happens to be a 40 mph wind in your face...isn't the low running shot a reasonable option for the approach?


I play a ton of shots that probably aren't the best, lowest risk option. I'll try to cut it into a right side pin even though my odds are slim. I do this because it looks and feels like the right shot and I'm trying make a birdie...not because I'm wondering what a ball moving left-to-right looks like in the air.