Strategic architecture taxonomy. Do we have names for common design features?

[Matt Schoolfield]

I was thinking about Garrett Morrison's hot take from his new podcast about whether or not Heroic Architecture is actually a different school from Strategic Architecture. It got me thinking about the different design tools in the strategic playbook. I think that the four main strategic tools I see often are all different in kind, but consistently used. I know there are more, but I just want to know if there is a language we already have to talk about them:

• Placing a hazard in the landing zone at the ideal approach line. This could be a discrete or continuous risk/reward payoff depending on the green complex. Example: O'odham #13, Left is safe.

• Creating a diagonal hazard with an increasing benefit, and let the player choose their appropriate risk tolerance. Continuous risk/reward payoffs. Example: Something like 18 at Pebble.

• Heroic carry to an ideal approach zone. Discrete risk/reward payoff. Example: O'odham #12 Red Mountain, but playing left.

• Split fairway with increased risk on the ideal side: Discrete payoff. Example: 4th at Woking

• Split fairway where playing away from the hole provides ideal approach, but adds length. Unclear payoff. Example: O'odham #5 Left is Right.

While I wouldn't call them templates, I feel like I see these strategic tools implemented everywhere, and it just feels like we should have a shorthand for them.

[Simon Barrington]

I have to say I thought the general idea of the "GCA 101 Podcast" was a good one and much needed. The interaction with his colleague (as a inquisitive student) was really good in that it will bring the less informed along with them. I genuinely wish them good luck with it.

However, and I leave myself open to question/ridicule on this given the knowledge base on here, but I strongly believe that the idea that Heroic is attached to Strategic to be false. So I am glad you raised this question/post...

One golfer's "Heroic" is another's "Penal"...and all that...

i.e Heroic is far more attached in nature and form of required shot-making to Penal architecture (than Strategic) and truly Penal designs (think Tom & Willie Dunn or Royal St. George's original layout) were merely the overuse and bland repetition of required heroic shot after heroic shot. The result is often binary and unnuanced.

RTJ may have tried to have us believe his designs including repeated use of water and forced carries were "Heroic", however they are for the mass of golfers Penal.

Your taxomony and differing templates (although I fear that word means something entirely different to most) are interesting, and possibly valid in themselves. But, the perspective offered by Garrett is, IMHO, wrong.

(I also believe as has been discussed and offered by many that the very best designs involve a mix of all three "schools" - Hence PV #1 in  so many lists)

[Tom_Doak]

I once wrote an article for GOLF to say that Amen Corner exhibited all three:


11: strategic (before all the trees)
12: penal
13: heroic


Even though Augusta is considered the epitome of strategic design, it exhibits plenty of penal shots or features.  I’m not sure there is a great course that doesn’t.  Maybe Royal Melbourne?

[Sean_A]

I once wrote an article for GOLF to say that Amen Corner exhibited all three:


11: strategic (before all the trees)
12: penal
13: heroic


Even though Augusta is considered the epitome of strategic design, it exhibits plenty of penal shots or features.  I’m not sure there is a great course that doesn’t.  Maybe Royal Melbourne?

Whats the cutoff of number of penal holes before a course is called penal? I don't really know, but prior to the redo, I thought of Oakland Hills as a penal golf course....as an example.  Oakmont strikes me as penal.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’m not sure what podcast we’re talking about. But picking up on Simon’s post, I think there’s a clear distinction between Heroic and Penal defined by diagonal choices. Truly penal architecture asks for the same solution for all: Carry it X distance or hit it straight. Heroic architecture asks for a carry but provides the choice of how much.


Apologies if I’m having a different conversation there.

[Simon Barrington]

I’m not sure what podcast we’re talking about. But picking up on Simon’s post, I think there’s a clear distinction between Heroic and Penal defined by diagonal choices. Truly penal architecture asks for the same solution for all: Carry it X distance or hit it straight. Heroic architecture asks for a carry but provides the choice of how much.

Apologies if I’m having a different conversation there.

The Podcast was The Fried Egg's new GCA focused edition called "Designing Golf" they released the first few episodes this week.

I'l defer to you and others who have studied the subject formally on the precise definitions as they may have developed over time, as my understanding is that a "Heroic" carry doesn't have to be diagonal (but that may be flawed)?

Perhaps I was too strident and it sits between the two, I just think (especially for shorter players) it sits closer in spirit to Penal than Strategic...but perhaps that is the debate. Perhaps, I should apologise to Garrett as well?

Historians such as Bob Crosby have looked deeply into the Penal vs. Strategic public debates of Low vs. Taylor etc....does anyone know when the discussion included "Heroic" into the mix?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Thanks Simon.


Noting that I haven’t listened to the podcast, heroic sits right in the middle of penal and strategic for me.


It is penal in so much as it calls for that forced carry.


It is strategic in so much as it asks you to choose a line off the tee - truly penal architecture does not - for an element of reward (a shorter shot in). Penal architecture has no reward, only avoidance of punishment.


It is not truly strategic because strategic design is about the angle of your next shot, not (strictly speaking) the angle of your tee shot, nor the distance left for you next. In simple terms, the reward with a strategic hole is angle, not distance.

[Simon Barrington]

Thanks Ally

I like your description and have been looking around for a good definition, many are not as good as yours.

Found the following from the proponent himself if that helps, but I might be so bold as to suggest a "heroic" hole in this sense is somewhat "binary" in nature (he prescribed at least two routes & consequences). The choice is more blatant and far less graded or nuanced than Strategic.

It strikes me that if the mass of (RH) golfers slice, a hazard that is angled L-R it is far more penal than one angled R-L.

From - Golf by Design - Robert Trent Jones -
"A “heroic” hole has at least two distinctly different alternatives for reaching the green in regulation. One lacks a severe penalty for a misplayed shot. With the second, however, a misplay incurs a severe penalty, but, if successfully negotiated, it will reward the player with a far superior position and/or distance advantage. Thus, the player faces a truly heroic decision. This shot itself also can be called heroic."

Feeling like the inquisitive kid who asks the question others don't dare to ask in class to promote questions...at least I'm learning as I go...

Cheers

[Thomas Dai]

Here is a link to the GCA 101 episode by TFE/GM mentioned above -  https://t.co/0JWUWzjp3a
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

I am struggling as to why labels/names/definitions need to be attached to golf courses (or anything else). They seem to be shortcuts to avoid analysis.


Ira

[Sean_A]

I’m not sure what podcast we’re talking about. But picking up on Simon’s post, I think there’s a clear distinction between Heroic and Penal defined by diagonal choices. Truly penal architecture asks for the same solution for all: Carry it X distance or hit it straight. Heroic architecture asks for a carry but provides the choice of how much.


Apologies if I’m having a different conversation there.

Yes, and if strategic there is an option to avoid the diagonal carry.

Ira…common understanding of terms fosters easier communication of ideas.

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm asking about the four specific design features I listed in the original post, and if they have names. I was thinking about writing a short piece about how to identify these elements, and perhaps to coin some shorthand for what to call them when you see them.

I see them a lot, and think that some form of shorthand for them would be useful.

[Tags:]

Tags: