[Matt Schoolfield]

I have a question for the architects here.

I'm always curious about how to encourage/get/force players to play low shots, but one place I've see it done: #6 Corica Park: North Course (Marc Logan), it seems to be achieved by overhanging trees at the tee box. I don't know if this is intentional or not, but from some positions, a high shot to the green isn't feasible. I really enjoy the hole, but I've heard folks complain about not being able to hit a high shot there.

Now, I definitely understand the concern between an architect forcing a shot verses encouraging a shot, but it seems that architects force shots all the time, especially on doglegs, simply by blocking out certain routes with trees or unplayable rough.

Is there a heuristic for how to frame a hole, especially when limiting certain times of shots, to make the hole less frustrating for players? Or is it just accepting that some people who want to hit certain shots will always be mad.

Another way to ask this, is there a way to shift the overton window such that players accept only being able to hit certain shots and not others without getting angry at the architect? I know some of the architecture books I've read suggest the more natural a hazard looks, the less people will moan, but is there a way to apply this to shot type, rather than hazards?

Edit: changed the title because I didn't think it accurately represented the question

[Tom_Doak]

I’m not a fan of trying to force everyone to hit a certain shot, especially off the tee.  If you try to force golfers to hit a hook off the tee, 70 to 80% of them would fail.


If you wind up behind a tree for your second shot, that’s a problem you created.  I just try to find ways to reward creativity.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,


I always likened golfers to small children.  Parents know that if you give them options, like ice cream now or staying up later without a snack, they don't get mad, they just choose.  They do get mad if they are being told they HAVE to do any particular thing.  I am in the encourage, but don't force camp, if nothing else, it limited phone calls from angry golfers to my office.


I recall a hole early in my career where the best shot was to fade a tee shot around a tree.  However, I made the fw wide enough that someone who didn't have that shot pattern still had a way to play, even if at a distance and angle disadvantage from the "wide side" of the fw.

[Ira Fishman]

To the extent that the question is about curving a shot one way or the other, is it all that relevant given that club and ball technology have taken that aspect (and fun) out of the game except for the most talented players?


Ira

[cary lichtenstein]

I always hit a draw, I played this one course where I was invited to a 2 day member member where the trees invaded the right side of the fairway right off the tee, I hated the course, just hated it.

[Michael Felton]

I always hit a draw, I played this one course where I was invited to a 2 day member member where the trees invaded the right side of the fairway right off the tee, I hated the course, just hated it.

I'm the other way. The 3rd hole at Bethpage Blue if the tee is on the left side is virtually unplayable for me. There's a tree about 30 yards ahead of the tee that intrudes on the left side of the green. I'm with you - I hate it.


I'm not an architect, but I don't think I'd enjoy a hole where overhanging branches off the tee force you to hit it low.


I think the best way to get people to hit it low would be to encourage people to run the ball onto the green. It's much more effective to do that if you are hitting it low. Biarritz greens with the pin on the back I think are pretty good at that. If you hit it high, it is prone to stay in the swale and if the back bit is firm enough that you can't really stop a high shot on it directly, then you have to run it up.

[Simon Barrington]

Not an architect, but have read and heard several state that the more options one gives a golfer the more errors occur in shotmaking and strategy.
Single strategy restrictive courses/holes tend to reward the unthinking monontonous mediocre, options encourage creativity and talent of the better thinkers/players/champions.
 
That applies to all levels of play, many an example exists of Club's seeking to strip out interesting features/hazards/bunkers that are not relevant to the longer/better golfers, supposedly to help the lesser player, reduce maintenance and speed up play; but they simply make it boring for that group of players and fail to determine between the thoughtful golfer and less so (regardless of their standard).
Two 25 Handicappers playing against each other need to be rewarded somehow for better thinking.
Why do we only provide that challenge and interest for the "better" players?
That is unbalanced, especially when there are far more of the lesser players paying the bills!
Options lead to decisions, and decisions are fun!


(The previous comment on lessening of shaping shots in the modern game, due to equipment advances, is very relevant too)

[Mark_Fine]

Everything in moderation.  The problem with trees is that they grow so on the hole Matt mentioned those overhanging branches might not have been the intention.  However, trees can be a great hazard on a golf course and can create/force/require, call it what you want, all kinds of different shot options. Nothing wrong with that unless it become too repetitive. 


Regarding these tree branches that might require a low shot; what kind of shot does a bunker directly in front of a green require?  What shot is required/forced/necessary on #17 at TPC Sawgrass?  Do you hit it low and run the ball on the ground into #15 at Augusta?  You might definitely have to hit it low, run it on especially to a back pin on #17 at The Old Course or even to any pin on that hole depending on the wind.  And what do you do if you end up short sided with the road bunker between you and the hole? 


Certain holes, situations, hazards/obstacles can force certain type shots.  If one type of hazard is overused it is probably not a welcome sight for golfers but most good players like a course that requires a variety of shot making.

[Jim_Coleman]

    What pisses me off is when a super forces a shot by radically moving the tee markers to one side of a tee. I really can’t draw the ball. We used to have 2 par threes with trees down the left side. When the tees were placed way on the left side, I really had no shot. “Learn to hit a draw” was the answer. To me, that’s bad green keeping. And if the architect designed the hole that way, it would be bad architecture. I don’t mind if a draw is the preferred shot, just not the only shot.

[Sean_A]

A lot of the best par 3s require an aerial shot. But if you want to encourage golfers to hit low shots, design longer par 3s into the predominant wind. They can be flat, uphill or downhill. I am not sure if many golfers enjoy this type of hole, but it does encourage low shot without taking away the aerial shot. Of course, the turf needs to be at least reasonably keen for this to work well. There are few more beautiful shots than a low slinging 3 iron which creeps up to the hole.


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Jim,
There is a par five hole I play often in Hilton Head where I don’t love when the super uses the right side of the back tee because is takes away a draw which for me I can hit farther than a fade.  It makes reaching the hole in two more of a challenge.  But I don’t blame that on the super.  He is just spreading out wear and tear on the tee.  Also, the architect likely knew when the markers were placed on that side of the tee box, different shot options might be required.  Again, if there was one hole after another like that, it could get old but it is more rub of the green where tee markers are each day.  The same goes for hole locations.  Should one complain when a hole location is tucked tightly on the right next to a bunker on say a par three hole.  Makes hitting a draw for a right handed player very challenging.  So be it, don’t play a draw or don’t take on that pin.  Golf was never meant to be fair

[Padraig Dooley]

To the extent that the question is about curving a shot one way or the other, is it all that relevant given that club and ball technology have taken that aspect (and fun) out of the game except for the most talented players?


Ira

I watch golfers hit 60 yard slices and hooks every day. They would be ecstatic to hear that the curve is gone from the golf ball. They, like me, have seen no evidence to that effect yet.

[Thomas Dai]

Kinda wonder what proportion of players, all ages, all abilities, would be frustrated if a course had no forced carries, no trees and no long grass?
Not just some players but all ages and all abilities.

Atb

[Matt Schoolfield]

I’m not a fan of trying to force everyone to hit a certain shot, especially off the tee.  If you try to force golfers to hit a hook off the tee, 70 to 80% of them would fail.

If you wind up behind a tree for your second shot, that’s a problem you created.  I just try to find ways to reward creativity.

Hmm... yes, thank you for this. I suppose I need to explore what scenarios reward low shots. If anyone knows any books that go into this, I'd appreciate any recommendations.

I recall a hole early in my career where the best shot was to fade a tee shot around a tree.  However, I made the fw wide enough that someone who didn't have that shot pattern still had a way to play, even if at a distance and angle disadvantage from the "wide side" of the fw.

I definitely can appreciate this, I just have more trouble with high vs low than draw vs fade, simply because I see high shots as a strictly dominant strategy except for the most obscure cases. It's a bit of a hobby horse for me trying to think up scenarios in which low shots are a better option given the same skill level, but there are only very few I've thought of.

Everything in moderation.  The problem with trees is that they grow so on the hole Matt mentioned those overhanging branches might not have been the intention.  However, trees can be a great hazard on a golf course and can create/force/require, call it what you want, all kinds of different shot options. Nothing wrong with that unless it become too repetitive. 

Regarding these tree branches that might require a low shot; what kind of shot does a bunker directly in front of a green require?  What shot is required/forced/necessary on #17 at TPC Sawgrass?  Do you hit it low and run the ball on the ground into #15 at Augusta?  You might definitely have to hit it low, run it on especially to a back pin on #17 at The Old Course or even to any pin on that hole depending on the wind.  And what do you do if you end up short sided with the road bunker between you and the hole? 

Certain holes, situations, hazards/obstacles can force certain type shots.  If one type of hazard is overused it is probably not a welcome sight for golfers but most good players like a course that requires a variety of shot making.

I think you've really hit on what I'm talking about here Mark. #17 at Sawgrass gets is well regarded while offering strictly limited options. I'm obviously fine with that, but want to understand the psychology behind why a hole with no ground option is allowed, whereas a hole with no aerial option is a problem. Perhaps a peppering of variety is always the answer.

I appreciate all these responses, thanks all.

[Charlie Goerges]

I think to answer only the question in the title... no, there is no way to remove options without frustrating (at least some) players. That's been borne out by a number of answers of frustrated people on this thread.


Should shot options be removed by design, at least sometimes? Yes, in the interest of variety, they sometimes should. Sawgrass 17 and other good examples of this were mentioned.


Trees are a complicated way to do this though. I like how complicated they are, but in addition to taking away a shot based on trajectory, they almost always force some kind of curvature as well. (As well as varying levels of curvature and trajectory based on how close/far you are from them.) They're a kind of chaos agent if they aren't used extremely smartly.


That said, to those saying the wind can force a low shot, I'm not totally on board with that. I remember Tom Watson used to preach not to try to adjust your trajectory for the wind, rather just play for it and hit your normal shot. I don't remember if he thought a low ball didn't really perform that differently or if he just thought the typical gains were smaller than the increased error rate caused by being out of your normal swing comfort zone. But he was good in the wind...

[Mark_Fine]

Charlie,
I can assure you Tom Watson varied his shot shapes amd ball trajectory based on the speed and direction of the wind 😉 He may have mentioned somewhere at some point that the average golfer not try to change much with their swing but trust me, shot shape and trajectory needs to be adjusted to be a strong player in the wind.


I recall a round at Whistling Straits years ago being on the practice range prior to our round.  I was paired with a college kid who was a +2. He was hitting these high towering irons and driver shots while I was working on knocking down four irons and hooded drivers.  He asked me why I was doing that and I said that the wind was supposed to really kick up during our round.  He shot 80 and I beat him by four.  His shots were blowing all over the place.

[Matt Schoolfield]

He asked me why I was doing that and I said that the wind was supposed to really kick up during our round.  He shot 80 and I beat him by four.  His shots were blowing all over the place.

Yea, in my life playing, there's "wind" and then there is wind. During my time in Edinburgh, on the coast it was pretty much normal to play in winds that most Americans would moan about. When the winds really blew, I think most people would consider it unplayable, but that doesn't matter to us. I love playing in wind though, because it really seems to separate the strategic thinkers from the trackman junkies.

[Charlie Goerges]

Charlie,
I can assure you Tom Watson varied his shot shapes amd ball trajectory based on the speed and direction of the wind 😉 He may have mentioned somewhere at some point that the average golfer not try to change much with their swing but trust me, shot shape and trajectory needs to be adjusted to be a strong player in the wind.


I recall a round at Whistling Straits years ago being on the practice range prior to our round.  I was paired with a college kid who was a +2. He was hitting these high towering irons and driver shots while I was working on knocking down four irons and hooded drivers.  He asked me why I was doing that and I said that the wind was supposed to really kick up during our round.  He shot 80 and I beat him by four.  His shots were blowing all over the place.

I am aware he could hit all of those shots and his advice was for the vast majority of golfers. But even if hitting low shots was very effective into the wind (which is not a given), the wind blows multiple directions throughout the year (or not at all), so it isn't a very effective way to force a shot on someone especially inland in North America. I'm sure the wind can be relatively reliable in certain places, like the home of golf or many places on the ocean, but certainly not everywhere. Additionally, trees (which I tend to like more than most on this board) are complex in a different way to wind. So the aerial hazards (wind and trees) can be fickle.


That said, I want the architects to use them wherever and however they make sense.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()