Options!?

[TEPaul]

It's pretty much fascinated me as long as I've been on this website (a long time--from Day One) the fixation with options---what the definition is, what they mean to various golfers, how essential they are to a good golf hole, to a great golf course, to strategy, whether various levels of abilities can take advantage of them etc.

I've always felt that options are important--they're the raw material of thinking golf, of temptation, recognizing the limits of ones ability and so forth but to me they've never been completely essential--certainly not on every hole.

We don't often speak of the enormous amount of golf holes in this world, particularly par 3s, that have limited or no options--these are the holes that can be called one dimensionally demanding but wonderful holes nonetheless.

Consider them the holes that may be what used to be called "shot testers", you just need to do that one thing (generally hit the green) or you have a problem, sometimes a massive one to overcome on the next shot.

Options are important to golf and architecture but in my opinion they're definitely not essential on all holes. There're a number of courses in this world, in my area notably including PVGC and Merion that have plenty of holes with some sophisticated and nuancy options but these courses also include a number of holes that are basically non-option "shot testers" and I think those courses because of those holes are better courses for it!

I think options are very important in architecture but I also think too many on this website have gone a bit overboard on the necessity of options everywhere--and in the most extreme cases the complete necessity of options to even be considered a good golf hole.

A thread like this might fall flat or take off on a bunch of tangents--it doesn't matter--but my only suggestion is to take whatever Pat Mucci has to say with a couple of large grains of salt!  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

My Dad played Chechessee (sic) Creek this weekend. In regard to options, he offered what I consider to be one of the most interesting observations about a very interesting golf course.

After playing the majority of his golf on this trip at Skidaway Island, where the courses are routed through housing development, offering many opportunities to hit your ball out of bounds or in water, and featuring many holes with hazards tight leftand right off the tee and left and right flanking most greens, he observed that the direct line to most greens at Chechessee (sic) Creek were well guarded by hazards (principally sand), but almost always, there was plenty of room to... for lack of a better term, I guess, bail out - on a longer route to the green. But, bail out into those "safe option areas" and the subsequent shot was most often quite difficult.

Now, isn't this the most rudimentary formula for interesting golf architecture? For every caliber of golfer? Either challenge the hazards on the direct line to the hole, or "bail out" and face a difficult subsequient stroke. Every golfer, regardless of ability recognizes these options and are presented with an opportunity to at least try to pull off a well-executed, valiant stroke, or not. Right?

At least part of the excitment of the SPORT of golf, for a scratch man or a 36 handicapper, is to presented with options, to decide what to do, then attempt to execute the stroke that you've decided to attempt to play. Isn't it?

You may never pull one off - EVER! - but to be presented a few choice, decide on one, and attempt to pull it off, is golf at its greatest, I think.  

Call me crazy  

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

What you said there in your post seems to be very true but look at your post carefully. You seem to continuously talk about hitting some optional shot that best sets up an approach to the green. But what about the par 3 holes of the world that have no such thing (you'll notice in my post I mentioned this one dimensional "shot testing" requirement usually falls to the par 3 hole)? Think of all the wonderful par 3 holes in the world, at least, that are one dimensional "shot testers" that require you to hit the green or face some fairly serious consequences. To me this means that great golf architecture can never solely rely on options. Great architecture must also rely on non or low option "shot testing" holes. If need be I'll try to go through the great courses of the world to try to prove it. I love really good options, who doesn't, but they must or should be off-set by holes that test a golfer strictly!

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree, Tom. There are some great "shot testing" par 3s that do compliment more strategic holes on some of the great strategic courses of the world. Think of 3 at Pine Valley and 15 at Jasper. You either hit those greens, or as you say, face serious consequences. I love those holes. And they "complete" those golf courses.

My response above, I guess, should have been posted under Pat Mucci's thread about options. Whoops  

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Again, not that I don't like and appreciate options, it's just that I'm trying to prove that great architecture doesn't have to rely on them completely.

It's probably worthwhile, for the sake of discussion to break options down into two basic groups---aerial and ground. It appears to me there're a number of otherwise excellent golf architecture analysts on this website who feel that to be a good hole any and every hole must offer some sort of ground game approach option.

That is what I do not believe to be true. The well done ground game approach option is a wonderful thing on many golf holes of this world but there always seem to be up to six or so holes on most of the great courses in the world that have greens that absolutely require an aerial shot from everyone, unless, of course, a golfer thinks it's OK (as a reasonable option) to try to recover from a bunker or worse!

These holes to me are the pretty much one dimensional "shot testing" holes that add to the variety of golf in my book. I'm sorry to say these types of holes preclude the notion of a golfer putting his golf ball all the way around a golf course but that notion to me was always sort of a fairy tale!

I think good options are terrific, they really are the raw material of "thinking" golf. I just don't think they're essential everywhere. Matter of fact to have a few one dimensional "shot testers" on any course makes that course even better than if every single hole was filled with options!

There are numerous people on here, apparently, who don't agree with that though, they seem to be absolutely option crazy---so I'm just wondering why. What do they think is lacking in some of these great "shot testing" holes (other than options, of course)?

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Interesting how you perceive some on here as feeling they need all options all the time. I think it was in Pat's premise too. I know I don't read everything here, but I am curious as to where you (and even Pat) got that impression from others here.

To turn the argument around, I think there have been too many courses which don't provide any options on every hole. Making every shot a testie.

Now, that gets old fast. So, having variety in many various categories seems proper and Socratian, to me.

[THuckaby2]

Concur with Adam.  Variety remains the spice of life, and golf -and this works both ways when it comes to options and "testies" (love that term, love the connotation!).  

I'd say the best courses do have both.

And testies don't have to be just par 3's... think about a great hole like #14 at Cypress Point.  Not many options there... it just takes two great shots to reach the green, and doing so is inspiring.

Or so I hear, not having experienced that!

But yes, Adam is right on that too many courses are all testies, no options, and that sure as hell isn't good.

TH

[Jeff Goldman]

Where does the idea of recovery shots fit into this?  Many great holes that fit TomPaul's description require specificshots, but I think the best at least allow some chance for a great recovery.  On 15 at Jasper, if you screw up, you are in a heap of trouble, but the trouble can be a ton of fun - I know.  Isn't that better than "great" no-option holes of whatever par with no chance to recover but retee (17 at Sawgrass) or punch out of trees (various at Medinah)?

Jeff Goldman

[Steve Lang]

 

Tom,

Count me in as regarding the 11th at TOC and I believe the 5th  at Ganton, if I remember correctly !

The 11th at TOC had pin dead center the day I played there.  I aimed to left of pin as advised, and pushed 5I very slightly right nearly canning it.. yes I made the putt for a 2.  There really was little option there.

The 5th at Ganton I seem to remember the gorse all over the place it seems and watching folks with their trolleys getting over and up to the green.. I didn't experience the gorse at TOC nearly as much as at Ganton..  View to green much more intmidating to me than the 11th at TOC, though shorter.  

[Doug Siebert]

Even ignoring the wind, TOC's 11th has options.  Now I'll point out first that both times I've played it the pin has been as front as it can get, hanging for dear life on the edge of the slope, so I know that position well but not the dead center position you speak of.  But even assuming it is the most boring green possible in that area and is dead flat, you still have multiple options:

1) fly the ball to the hole, hitting straight (pretty much what you did)
2) hit a big knock down fade, landing long left of Strath and and rolling it home
3) hit a high draw, playing right of Strath and taking both bunkers out of play, and rolling the ball home

Now options 2 & 3 probably aren't all that reasonable in dead calm conditions, but add just a touch of wind and one or the other would quickly become a preferred option.

I'll submit however that TOC is probably not a good place to give real world examples of options unless you've played it at least a half dozen times.  At least for me, I've played it twice, and I've given my caddies fits not listening to their advice about safer shots and lines of play.  Ended up with some shots that amazed them, and some shots that made them shake their heads and think "I tried to tell him!"

The thing is, you play TOC for the experience, not for a score, so tempting fate to see how good you are -- either to pull off the shot, or recover from your just desserts, is most of the fun.  I know I've posted before about the essentially impossible shot I attempted on the Road Hole last time, trying to fly a 7 iron from the wispy left rough directly over the Bunker to a back left pin.  Didn't quite pull it off, but ended up with the experience of getting up and down for par off the Road.  Next time I may get the fun of playing from the Bunker.

I'm sure a certain someone would say the option I tried there wasn't truly an option because I had less than a 1 in 10 chance of success.  Heck, Tiger probably has a less than 1 in 10 chance of making that shot.  But its probably an easier up and down from the Road than leaving myself a 30 yard pitch and run off to the right like my caddy would have had me do

[THuckaby2]

Doug:

I concur completely with your assessment of #11 particularly and TOC in general.  I'd add to the options intentionally playing short and then just putting between the bunkers - the option advocated by the caddie each time I've had one there.

In any case, that's not really why I am replying here.  I just can't resist pointing out that when you very correctly say:

The thing is, you play TOC for the experience, not for a score, so tempting fate to see how good you are -- either to pull off the shot, or recover from your just desserts, is most of the fun.

you do realize that in the Mucci world, you aren't playing golf, right?  So what were you playing those two times at TOC?  Whatever it was, it was damn similar to what I played, so I'd like a name for it.  Sure looked and felt like golf to me...

TH

ps - if this makes no sense, go read Patrick's thread re options not existing outside of score...  

[Doug Siebert]

Yes, I saw Patrick's post that you are referring to.  I'm starting to come to the conclusion that TEPaul is right about him