[TEPaul]

TomD:

Fine post there!

I should certainly come right out and tell you that I think it's wonderful you just come right out and say without beating around the bush what you feel various levels of players respond to and particularly complain about and how you definitely take what they say and feel seriously in the way you approach golf architecture. I don't know if I should say you worry about it but it seems sometimes you do. Whether you do or not it's extremely interesting to those on here who don't design courses to get a glimpse into the things that go on in the mind of a very fine architect in this regard. It's the best education any of us can get on here of what goes on in the conceptual design and construction side of things.

You said:

"Lucky for George Crump he's dead, or there would be a lot of guys who wanted to have a word with him."

No question you're right about that today and in a real way that is a supreme irony. Of course PVGC was designed beginning in 1913 but Crump set out to build a purposefully brutally hard golf course and perhaps you're aware of the fact that Crump was probably somewhat fixated on the driver. So Crump very definitely intended almost all the holes to be very demanding driver holes! Crump absolutely adored his driver (he and his friends referred to it as "Bolivar") and from all the stories about him I've come across he seemed to approach the driver shot somewhat like the man attempting make people ring the bell at the county fair.

In other words it's sort of hard to actually imagine that Crump very much attempted to build a course with a good number  of holes that one would need to hit their two longest shots on to reach greens and that certianly does mean a good long driver from the tee--and that's even excepting the two par 5s that he decreed he wanted no one to reach in two shots--EVER! Holes #8, 12, 17 are the only real intended short ones. #2 is about the longest short hole in the world. Crump had ever intention of extending the green out about 40-50 yards on #6 and apparently on #11 a good deal too! They say he was never too sanguine about the little #12 either. My take is if Crump could see what's now upon us coming he may have arranged to have PVGC capable of playing about 7,100-72,000 yds somehow!

Things certainly have changed and for the very good player of Crump's time vs the very good and long player of today the tee to green strategies have almost been turned on their heads. Probably #7 might be the best example. Crump's concept there was that the good player sort of had to air out two of his best shots to carry over Hell's Half Acre in two while today the long player has to tone it down some not to go into Hell's Half Acre off the tee. I'm sure Crump would be shocked and a little depressed to see how things have changed.

Anyway, my point is that had Crump thought that distance would increase like this he would have designed some real elasticity into the course which of course he didn't do. One of the reasons obviously was he was a fanatic about incredibly close tee to previous green proximity.

You said:

"Moral of the story?  You may be right that this would help to equalize the long hitters' advantage, but they aren't going to lie down and take it."

No doubt you're right about that but somehow PVGC is quite unique this way--with all the cross hazards cutting off the long hitter and can seem to get away with it in a unique sort of way.  Something Jamie Slonis just said is very true though and not much realized. PVGC does have quite wide fairways but a long hitter has to be pretty careful and precise in either distance or accuracy on a number of them such as #1, #4. #6, #8, #11, #13 and sometimes #15 or you can get yourself in trouble off the tee.

[Rick Shefchik]

Dan Kelly and I play at a course -- which I believe I will profile in "My Home Course" this summer, now that I have a digital camera -- on which the driver stays in the bag on nearly half the non-par 3s. I won't think about hitting the driver until the 5th hole, and I leave it in the bag on the par-4 10th, sometimes on the par-4 13th, sometimes downwind on the par-5 14th, and I never hit driver on the par-4 17th and 18th.

And for all the quirks -- and one or two flat-out bad holes -- on this course, it's really interesting. First-time players and stupid players have a tough time with it, even at 6500 yards.

The biggest problem with a course like this -- and perhaps even Pine Valley -- is that the more you play it, the more you routinely reach for the same club on the same tee. Yes, it requires thought the first couple of times through, but only a mule would keep putting balls out of bounds or in the water with a driver on the same holes, round after round. So I almost always hit 3-iron on #1, 3-iron on #2, five-wood on #4, three-wood on #10, three-wood on #13, three-iron on #17 and five-wood on #18. These clubs are now just as automatic for me -- give or take a really strong wind -- as the driver would be for most golfers who don't like to think.

Trouble is, I did my thinking ten years ago on this course, and I don't have to do much of it anymore.

[TEPaul]

RickS;

That description doesn't sound too good. It sounds like a prescription for real one-dimensionality!

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom --

More like two-dimensionality.

[ChrisHervochon]

Is it the fact that the driver is being taken out of your hands, or the fact that there are a lack of options on such a hole that is most bothersome?  I am curious, and think that maybe even on holes where the driver IS taken out of our hands, that it wouldn't be possible to design some other sort of feature that does allow options and shotmaking.  Does every hole other than a par-3 need to start off with a driver, and would it be bad if one hole on a course was of such nature?

[TEPaul]

Chris:

I believe Tom Doak on this thread put the answer to your question best. He mentioned that a hole shouldn't necessarily create a situation where a driver option is a "need", only that if the option existed somehow it would probably be more interesting. I take his meaning to be that this might be a "high risk" option where there might be a tempting reward but also great risk. Once again a better example could not be found than Riviera's #10, a very short par 4.

Another interesting example would be Macdonald's "Channel" hole at the old NLE Lido. There was a very high risk alternate fairway driving option for only the long hitter which basically turned this medium length par 5 (510 yds with the left fairway) into a shorter but demanding two shot par 4!

[Tom_Doak]

Chris:  I think it would be nice if 2-3 holes on every course made the good player think about something less than driver off the tee.  It's a way to even up the length gap just a little bit.  However, some guys want to hit driver anywhere, so I'd rather find ways to design a hole where they don't HAVE to lay up, but they eventually figure out it's a better play.

Crystal Downs is great in that regard.  I rarely hit driver on any of the four short par-4 holes there [and I'm far from a long hitter], but I think a scratch player would consider it on two or three of them.  

On the seventh hole, for example, there's a drop-off about 190 yards from the tee into a blind bowl which has a narrow landing area (wetland left, overhanging trees right, steep downslope if you pop up the drive) and a blind second shot.  It makes little sense to hit driver down into the bowl since the hole is only 335 yards; I generally hit a 3-iron off the tee, but when it's into the wind that's uncomfortable because you could have a 7-iron left to a wild green.  Nowadays, the shot into the bowl isn't even a driver for good players, but I suppose Tiger Woods would consider taking driver and trying to fly it over the cross-bunker forty yards in front of the green; that would be fun to watch, as he could make two or six that way.

As Rick S. points out, though, the problem with such "strategic" holes is that after a few rounds, you figure out the best strategy for yourself and it seldom changes after that.  That's the great advantage of  a seaside links ... the wind and the condition of the fairways changes enough from day to day to create doubt, even on a hole you've played 500 times.

[ForkaB]

Tom D

Great summation.

I agree that all (non-"short") holes ideally should allow for a driver option off the tee (usually at higher risk--often significantly higher risk, per your Crystal Downs example).  What is relatively uninteresting are holes that are reduced to a simplistic "2-iron to Position A" "strategy" off the tee, as per Rick S's description of his "home" course, and your description of Pine Valley (for the elite player).

You are also very right in highlighting the importance of wind and other climatic conditions to this issue.  There are no holes on significant courses that I am familiar with in Scotland that would be subject to any sort of rote mentality off the tee.  In the morning you might be able to blow the driver over or around most of the trouble, but in the afternoon you might be struggling to get close to the trouble, just so that you have a reasonably executable 2nd shot to the green.

The key, as Dan K and others effectively stated on a long lost thread, is the creation of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in he mind of the player on the tee.

When you get to the point such as Rick describes on his home course, and you describe for the elite players at PV, where there is ONLY one realistic option, well.......that is not "strategic" golf, at least to me.

PS--Tom D (and Adam).  You missed the point of my earlier analogy.

This is a great thread very much due to the fact that the driver (along with the putter) is a club which very much adheres to George Orwell's long established theory of GCA:

"All implements are equal, but some implements are more equal than others."

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- I wouldn't rule-out, me missing your analogy, but in my own defense, I didn't see the corrolation. Because, I can putt with any club, where as, I can't drive the ball, with similar uncertainty( ), with any other club than the Driver. I have used my 3 wood alot this year off the tee.  There was a point (2 weeks) where I golfed awefully well with it, and actually felt my 3 wood was longer than my driver.

Once again, I feel this is a subjective matter, which when thinking about the "essence", should somehow be minimized in any judicious analysis.

[ForkaB]

Adam

That's exactly the point!  You CAN wimp out with your 3-W, 2-iron off the tee, on just about any golf hole that does not require a forced carry--but it is A WIMP OUT (or proper strategic chocie, take your pick....) just the same (if the course is designed well--isn't this what this whole DG is about?).  Likewise, you can putt with your lob wedge or 5-wood, if you wish, but you are suboptimising the skill-oriented pleasures of the game (sport?) if you do.  Sure, anybody on any course can play any club to any hole but, as Dr. McCoy would say, "it may be golf, Jim,  but not as we know it........"

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I wonder why you mentioned a few times that it's your feeling that a player who chooses to play more strategically conservative off a tee with a club other than a driver is "WIMPING OUT"? That's a bit of a "ring the bell at the County Fair" mentality don't you think?

On the other hand, I always felt it's fun and exciting to watch a player with such a mentality whose strategic inclination is to hit the ball as far as possible almost no matter what. That's why you'll never see me criticizing the decision making of players like Calcavecchia and Mickelson. Theirs is a fairly unique strategic mentality these days but one should understand that's what got them to the party in the first place and so that's they way they should dance!

[TEPaul]

Frankly, at this point in this discussion of the driver and whether or not its kosher in design to effectively remove it from the choice of long players on tees it should be admitted that in this recent evolution of distance increase relating to Impliments and Balls it just might be these new incredibly long 3 woods that are basically out ahead of the parade in this entire issue of distance! So if looked at in that specific context what real difference does it make to not use the driver? To tour pro caliber players their 3 woods today are probably almost identical in performance to their drivers of just ten years ago.

[A_Clay_Man]

I chose not bite on the "wimp" bait, but I can give a fine example of a contention I have always held, and that is, a club is a club and a ball is a ball.  

At this year's GCA sanctioned "land of entrapment" get together, I had the good fortune to have Mike Nuzzo in our group in the A.m. round. Mike was struggling early but was clearly "finding his game". When we reached the short par 4 7th, Mike striped one down the middle and was clearly on grass, in the fairway. I had driver in my hand, and watched with great interest, Mikes ball.  The hole this day was slightly into a breeze and reaching was definitely not gonna happen. So, rather than "wimp" out and try to figure perfect yardage, I chose to bunt the driver. Based on how I saw Mikes ball act, I figured it would matter very little if I found one of the many nasties very near the line of charm.  Well, watching my ball was as exciting as it gets. The bunt, as always, is a low slider that for me might go about 220. It hit the firm fairway and it started trickling ever so close to the nastiness. On it's last visible revolution, I was convinced it had found the hungry gathering bunker. As Mike and his partner(B. McBride) were walking down the hole, Mike made the fatal decision to turn to to Bill and say,"I guess we are in the cat birdseat now". Craig E. and I, had them down but with Mikes ball, the momentum seemed to be switchng. Well wouldn't you know it, my ball had missed the bunkers and was sitting perfectly on some lush turf. As I was about to hit my shot I was well aware of Mike's words and was jazzed because i knew he would be eating them shortly. I believe this is when i turned to Bill  and said "watch this" and called my shot. Birdie for the good guys.  

[Brian_Gracely]

It seems that there is this universal notion that we're doing an injustice to Pine Valley because you can't hit enough Drivers and that this might be bad because Driver is the most challenging club to hit.  I challenge that premise with today's equipment.  Today's drivers are considerably more forgiving and easier to hit, so the fact that you can or can't (shouldn't) hit driver seems to be more of an ego problem than an architecture problem.  

And I've brought up this idea that cross-hazzards add a good element to Pine Valley preserving it's architectual integrity several times in the past.  It's good to see TEPaul picking this up and running with it to add credibility  

[ForkaB]

Brian

The only reason TEP picks up on this is that he donsn't have a chance in hell of ever reaching any of PV's cross hazards, even with an ERCII and a Polara!

[Steve Lang]

 

Where it is written that tee shots and using a driver are requirements..

[TEPaul]

Brian:

Despite the perception that today's drivers are more forgiving and less challenging to hit than the old drivers, don't worry about it--even good players today hit their drivers just as wild as they ever did. I know this from playing a ton of golf with good players and also doing a good deal of officiating for the last 12-15 years.

Rich Goodale just said I just picked up on this cross hazard thing at PV balancing out strategically the potential length of long drivers with shorter drivers because I can't possibly hit a driver into any of PVGC's cross hazards anyway.

I certainly didn't just pick up on the strategic balancing out thing because basically that's what I've been aware of and the way I've gone about approaching competitive golf there against very long drivers for over twenty years.

Rich is wrong, as ususal, about why I mentioned this but he's right about me not being able to drive it into PVGC's cross hazards. Of course on #8 I've basically never used a driver and on #17 I have come very close to the cross hazard but generally don't hit driver there anyway. On #4 and #11 I've come very close to the cross hazards but I do it more by running the ball down those hills than flying it near the cross hazards. But in all these years I think it's safe to say I've never hit a driver into a PVGC cross hazard and probably never could have.

My whole point in all this is to say, as Tom Doak understood (but apparently not Rich Goodale as usual) is that this reality actually puts more pressure and strategic decision making on the long hitter's club selection on most of those cross hazard holes than it does on me and my strategic decision making. Basically I can hit driver everwhere without ever thinking about this problem and I always could.

I've also always had my own general strategy of how to play that course even against the good and long hitter. My way may be slightly unique but it's certainly worked for me over the years against some pretty good players.

I'd never want to explain it in detail except to say I tried always to rely on extreme conservatism there. My philosophy was to take a bogie in the name of conservatism if need be--continually grind my ass off NEVER to make worse than bogie--the pars just come and a few birdies generally do too.

With that philosophy executed reasonably well you'd be absolutely amazed what you can do at PVGC and who you can beat with it. Long ago at PVGC I learned the way to go about playing that course properly, if you're me, particularly in stroke play but also match play is do everything in your power to avoid doubles and/or the so-called Pine Valley "others"! If you can do that reasonalby well, at the end of the day or the end of the career things will work out just fine.

But this cross hazard thing about PVGC is really smoke. I've seen a lot of good and long players down there and very few of them are so dumb as to drive a tee shot right into a cross hazard. The times I've seen that in over twenty years I could count on both hands!

[Brian_Gracely]

TEPaul,

I'd completely agree with you on the fact that it's a much tougher set of decisions to be made by the long hitter.  I hit the ball reasonably long and played with Huckaby yesterday at Cinnabar Hills.  At least on the Canyon holes, which have a nice mix of doglegs and cross-hazzards (anywhere from 240-280yds), I was constantly in internal debate over what to hit and what sort of approach I wanted to hit.  Huckaby hits the ball arrow-straight and about 240-260 and could just hit Driver on almost all the holes.  I'm not about to guess what sort of thinking goes on in his head , but he didn't seem to hestitate much when pulling from his bag.

[THuckaby2]

Brian - thus my choice of tees!

Actually my thinking there was to achieve just this effect... to play the tees that give a long-hitter like you something to think about, because I figure that's more fun.  As for me, you have me pegged... a straight drive is one of the few things I do well in this game, so it takes a darn tight hole, or a hazard at a much closer distance (ie #2 and #3 on the Canyon nine) to get me to club down.  But whereas I can just bang away with impugnity on a hole like #6 Canyon, I fully understand that the issue of going through the fairway exists big time for you, so you have a much tougher choice than I do.  Same goes for #7 Canyon, and many other holes at a relatively tight, hazard-lined course such as we played yesterday.

The decisions are MUCH tougher for guys like you, without a doubt.  That's why it's fun to watch....

Just do remember that you also get opportunites that us shorter-knockers don't, like driving it on to #5 Lake and having a chance to reach #7 Lake in two shots.  That does involve a tougher choice for you (on a hole like #7 anyway) but you also have a much higher payoff.

TH

[Mike Benham]

Just do remember that you also get opportunites that us shorter-knockers don't, like driving it on to #5 Lake and having a chance to reach #7 Lake in two shots.  That does involve a tougher choice for you (on a hole like #7 anyway) but you also have a much higher payoff.

Driving it on #5?  A blind over the hill shot?  From one the front set of tees ... wow!

[THuckaby2]

Mike - on this one we played a little up - one from the back - but it wasn't the absolute front of the tee... and oh yes, Mr. Gracely got it on, much to the chagrin of the folks putting at the time!  Absolutely my fault - I told him to go ahead and hit.  He also went last after us short-knockers had already flailed away.  I apologized profusely to the poor guys in front of us.  But let's just say I think they speeded up a bit after that!

It does take a poke to get it all the way down that hill... many have tried, few have made it.  And remember yesterday it was wet...

TH

[tonyt]

Good point made by TEPaul about the 3 wood. Soon we may have to refer to taking the driver/3 wood out of the players hands. A modern 3 wood is close to a driver of a few years ago. Will many non-driver holes become iron-only holes soon, as 3 woods are taking up the distance space our drivers only vacated very recently?

[ForkaB]

Tom IV

Great to see that you are revisting Cinnabar Hills now that I'm gone.  Are you going to take back all those bad things you used to say about the place, now?  From what you and Brian say (and from my experience there) this is EXACTLY what this thread is about--i.e. holes that challenge the longer hitter to THINK about what he is going to do.

Tom I

If you take the driver out of the hands of the top players, you are limiting choice, i.e. limiting strategic options, i.e. limiting strategy.  This is not a good thing for GCA, in my humble view, but of course, Pine Valley may be different!

[TEPaul]

"If you take the driver out of the hands of the top players, you are limiting choice, i.e. limiting strategic options, i.e. limiting strategy.  This is not a good thing for GCA, in my humble view, but of course, Pine Valley may be different!"

Rich:

No of course it isn't a good thing in a strategic sense but it is interesting the strategic effect it does have at PVGC for the long hitter in relation to other players. It's also safe to say that from PVGC's tips the cross hazard prevalence does not take the driver out of the hand of probably over 95% of the players who play the golf course. If you played the course from the tips Rich you could hit your driver to your heart's content without running into the cross hazards.

I'm going to make a post of what I think PVGC could do (somewhat has done) to put the driver back in the hand of the long hitter.

[TEPaul]

Here's how, hole by hole, I think despite its prevalent cross-hazards, PVGC, if they really wanted to, could put the driver back in long hitters hands or at least create much more of a temptation to use driver,

Hole #1;
Remove enough trees on the inside of the dogleg to expose from the tee far more of the right side of the hole as far down as possible. This probably won't tempt all that many but it surely would tempt some to even drive it across the road--a low percentage play but a play that would sucker some.

Hole #2;
Just not a really a driver hole for long hitters and probably never will be but even a really long hitter probably wouldn't run into the cross hazard near the green. That would effectively be pounding a driver about 320+ as the hole is a lot more uphill all the way along than most realize.

Hole #4;
No tee length elasticity and consequently not a really a hole to get the driver back in long hitters hands. However, one possible solution or temptation would be to mow into fairway the rough throughout the separated crossbunker to see if you could get really aggressive long drivers to "roll the dice".

Hole #6:
No tee length elasticity here and this recommendation would be sort of radical but remove a ton of trees on the right and expose the entire right side of the hole perhaps even exposing the green or the left portion of it. I guarantee you this would definitely tempt long hitters to take it way down the right side of the incredibly interesting right diagonal bunker carry! This one would be completely gorgeous!

Hole #7;
With the new tee addition the driver is back in the long hitters hand here.

Hole #8;
The driver choice actually exists here via the so-called Tom Watson option to just driver the ball right into the greenside bunkers.

Hole #9;
The driver is back in the long hitters hand with the new tee addition.

Hole #11;
Will never be a driver hole for the long hitter.

Hole #12;
Actually is one of the three driver holes on the course now for the very long hitter (from the left tee tips). I'd recommend removing about 30 yards deep all along the left and exposing Crump's old bunkering in there and the green too. This would tempt some to go right at the green or closer into the right side of the green than they try to now. This, in my opinion, would really be neat!

Hole #13;
With the new tee length addition the driver is back in the long hitter's hands.

Hole #15;
A driver hole for the long hitter if he wants to take a risk with accuracy and drive it into the "neck"

Hole #16;
Definitely a driver hole for the long hitter from the tips or even the second tee.

Hole #17:
Now this could be a truly fascinating and tempting driver option hole again if they’d consider restoring the old alternate fairway on the right! However, they’d have to take down probably hundreds of trees on the right starting near the tee and going past the green. And with the increased distance the alternate fairway would probably have to be extended about 40-50 yards farther down toward the green than it once was but that could be done without much problem. It may even be interesting to extend it to the hole and just leave the waste area that’s there now for the left fairway approach. It might also be necessary to take the green front down some so the player who took the alternate route could see the bottom of the flag which was one of the purposes of the old alternate fairway.

Hole #18:
With the new tee length addition the driver is back in the long hitters hand.

Count them up---that could be putting the driver back as an option for long hitters on almost all that non-par 3 holes.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()