Please define "Shot Values." This one has been on my mind lately, since I reread the Graves and Cornish book "Golf Course Design" from 1996. They say the definition is vague, and I think I agree.
They quoted my mentors, Tom Doak, and Mike Hurdzan about their views (and maybe others, that weren't included in the book)
Mike Hurdzan said, "the value of a required golf shot as related to its difficulty or margin of error.
Tom Doak said, "The architect should seek to get the most out of the ground and let play take care of itself. Each hole must be designed to balance risk and reward."
My mentors said, "The reflection of what a hole demands of the golfer and the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots."
I remember hearing Dick Nugent spout that from perhaps my first in the office. I was like a little kid, asking for a deeper explanation. As he tried to refine his thoughts (that I still thought were too vague) I would ask "how?" or "why?" until he told me to stop, lol.
TD's sounds 1) Like him, and 2) somewhat contradictory. Do you design for the ground? Or use it to best design for golfers? If you let play take care of itself, do you really attempt to balance "risk and reward?" Seems like he cannot do both, at least to me.
Dr. Hurdzan hints at a mathematical type of answer, which he later expounded on his book, sizing greens to at least the USGA Slope guidelines so they can accept a decent shot, keeping cross slopes gentle enough to not kick balls of the fairway, etc.
The authors go on after their quotes to opine as follows:
1. Distance from where the ball lies to its intended stopping point. Shot Length
2. The lie of the ball Ball lie and stance
3. The golfer's stance (i.e., sidehill vs. level, etc.)
4. Wind direction and speed Probably the number one thing, not 3rd.
5. The desired stopping point (flat, sloped, hard/soft, turf type) Is the fw or green receptive to a well played shot?
6. Hazards or other problems either in the desired line of play or near enough to be a concern. Do hazards punish Proportionally?
7. Shot requirements of the following shot, if the present shot is successful or missed. Is there a basic strategy that may yield a difference in your score on that hole.
8. "The value of hitting it long and particularly to place your shot is obvious."
They try for more detail, but are well short of any definition, i.e., IMHO, what it takes to successfully find the balance of risk/reward.
Is it really that vague, or does anyone have a more comprehensive definition to share?
If it were me, I would probably further define a "shot with good values" similarly to my Greens Committee Guide book as such:
A good hole fits the land well, (Doak) plays well, has reasonable challenge, is fun, looks great, is memorable, and is also distinct from others on the course. Some of the world’s great holes violate some of the good practices listed below. Most holes (with exceptions…there are always exceptions) follow at least most, if not all, of the following generally accepted golf course design principles:
• Aesthetics – Most of us play golf in large part to be out in nature. When natural site qualities are short on natural beauty, the architect needs to supply it with hazards, contouring, landscaping, etc.
• Visible targets and hazards – First, they are artistic (see above). Second, this fosters strategy and even safety. They are even more important at resort and public courses for safety than at private clubs.
• Length – From each tee, golfers should be able to play holes of all types from a reasonable length for them.
• Width – With some variety, wide turf corridors (fairways and roughs) facilitate strategic route options and allow “hit it, find it, hit it again” golf. Sub-200 foot turf corridors are narrow, while 225-250 foot corridors are comfortable. Any wider is just plain embarrassing to miss, but it does happen.
• Challenge – The Robert Trent Jones mantra of “Hard Par, Easy Bogey” still applies. We add “possible birdie,” because who doesn’t like those?
• Strategy and Options – One way to play the hole is penal, two or more ways to play is strategic. Parents know that giving kids one choice (which is really no choice) makes them defiant but offering them their choice usually makes them compliant. Golfers aren’t very different.
• Risk and Reward – Temptation has been around since Adam and Eve. Choosing between safe and risky shots is always fun. It’s even more enticing when it saves a shot or two. Otherwise, why bother? Differing choices elevates the game from a rote, physical one to a physical and mental one.
· Encourage Good Shots – by letting golfers succeed, i.e., hold the green, stay in the fairway, etc., with all but very bad luck. And, by keeping most hazards moderately difficult, because overly punitive hazards make golfers less likely to take risks and succumb to temptation.
· Punish Bad Shots Proportionally – There are many variations in philosophy, applied by different designers with different goals to unique topography for each hole. In most cases, a half or full shot penalty is enough to change the outcome of a match. Losing 2 or more shots because of a bad shot seems like overkill.
As someone opined long ago, “The right of eternal punishment should be left to a higher power than the golf course architect.”
· Fair – While architects usually strive for “fair,” life’s not fair and neither is golf. “Perfectly fair” is unattainable. We can’t, and shouldn’t, totally eliminate “rub of the green.”
· Playable by All – For “D” players a “good shot” is airborne, generally flying towards the hole, and most of the way there. Even by that relaxed standard, most hit about 10 good shots per round and their best shots should get positive results! Those who hit less than 10 successful shots per round are called “E” (as in “ex”) golfers. When considering challenge and difficulty, architects generally err on the side of caution to accommodate all potential players. Key playability tenants include minimizing forced carries from the forward-most tees, which was easier to do before the environmental movement put birds ahead of birdies. Another is to minimize placing hazards that only punish poor shots.
· Agronomically Sound – While unseen by golfers, architects must make sure the soils, sun and breeze, together with proper drainage and irrigation support fine turf expected by golfers.
Thoughts on any of it? Or is it either too vague or broad to fit into a shorter explanation?
Apologies for the formatting where I pasted parts of my old articles.