[CHrisB]

In the "Anti-Strategy" thread it was said that strategic course design that rewards successfully challeging a hazard is superior to course design that dictates always playing away from hazards.

It was also said that "A shot that successfully challenges a hazard should result in a preferred position".  An example of a hole that satisfies this statement is the Road Hole at St. Andrews, where it is well known that a drive flirting with the OB right offers the best angle for approach.  Up until now this principle seemed so obvious to my tastes that I never thought to question it...until now.

The reason why I question it now is that in thinking of examples of what I consider my favorite holes to play in the world, many of them don't hold to this principle.  Some of them do, like the Road Hole, but even that hole is limited in my mind by one major factor--its predictability.  You know where the preferred position is every time you tee it up there (of course, the blindness of the tee shot introduces some uncertainty, but follow me here).

Now consider the 14th at TOC.  Where is the "preferred position"?  Should I flirt with the Beardies left?  Should I flirt with the OB wall right?  Should I go left of the Beardies and
into the 5th fairway?  Do I try to go short, left, right or over Hell Bunker on the 2nd shot?  Where is the pin and what type of approach is best for me to play?  The answers depend on the wind, the pin location, the state of my game, and the state of my mind.

My favorite holes seem to be those where I stand on the tee and ask "Where in the world should I play this shot?", where the "preferred position" is a mystery and not so obvious.  I may not know if I've played the hole "correctly" until I've finished it.

The 12th at TOC is another example.  Where is the "preferred position" there?  It's really up to you to figure out for yourself.

How about #2 TOC when the pin is front left?  Does challenging Cheape's bunker off the tee give you an advantage
with a shorter approach, or is the shorter shot to that pin actually harder?  Do you have a better chance of getting it close with a longer, lower shot with less spin?

Where is the "preferred position" on #5 at Pinehurst No. 2?  Down the right for a more open but much longer shot in to an elevated upside-down bowl green, or down the left for a shorter, more controllable shot but one that is even more elevated with less of an opening in?  Again, the answer is not given to you; it's up to you to figure out.

That's also why I like blind shots--it introduces uncertainty and makes the "preferred position" more mysterious.

Back to the Road Hole--I contend that it would be an even better hole if the left rough was kept as fairway.  This would re-introduce the option of playing way left and then going left of the Road Bunker (especially to the back left pin, which is the route Bobby Jones once took on the way to winning one of his championships there).  The "preferred option" would cease to be as well-defined or obvious.

But this is all personal preference to me; I tend to like uncertainty and open-endedness.

What do you all think--Do you believe in the principle that "a shot that successfully challenges a hazard should result in a preferred position"?  Is the ideal hole the one where the strategic options and preferred position are clearly laid out, or the one where the strategic options and preferred position are ever-changing and mysterious?

[Doug Siebert]

Your question about options and preferred position being clearly laid out or ever-changing and mysterious reminds me of the thread I started a few days ago:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/YaBB.cgi?board=GD1&action=display&num=1038383712

I referred to three options for target lines.  1) fair and upfront, which I'd read as being what the group who dislikes the "anti-strategy" wants.  2) hidden and mysterious, which is sort of (but not really) you are referring to, where the lines are either changing depending upon conditions or sort of a "roll your down" depending on your game and mood for the day.  What you are talking about is perhaps different enough I may consider it a 4th category.  3) evil and deceitful, which I read as the "anti-strategy" being referred to.

I see no reason why just because you successfully play a more difficult shot to cut off a dogleg, for example, that you should necessarily have an easier line to the green, as some are arguing in the anti-strategy thread.  You've got a shorter shot, does it have to have a better line as well?  How much advantage do we want to give to length?  A longer hitter capable of cutting the corner is going to be hitting a more lofted club in anyway, does a player have the right to complain if he's forced to hit a SW over a trap to get to the pin where a shorter hitter or one who lays up can roll his mid iron in if he wishes?

Some architects may choose to encourage players to roll the ball in, and allow you the chance to hit a SW in if you want, but its off a downhill lie to a tight pin on a hard green, so you better not miss it.  But if you choose to play their game and roll the ball in from correct spot, it'll take a slope in front of the green and find its way over to the pin like it has eyes.

It isn't what some people like because you won't know that until you've played the hole (and maybe not even then if you don't think about it, or see someone else do it)  Sometimes I'll find a new way to play a hole I've played a dozen times and have an "aha" moment and realize what the architect may stashed away from the imaginative to find.  It might not be anything as important as "cutting this corner leaves me with a shorter but harder shot" or "playing a low hook with a long iron here will roll the ball right up to that back left position that I can't ever seem to get to with a 7i after I bomb a driver".  It might just be a way to turn what seems like a difficult up and down to an easier one so I no longer feel going there is such a bad deal and my entire strategy for the hole then changes.

About your thought for the Road Hole....  Would the Road Hole really be the Road Hole if it allowed you to cheat way left and avoid both the road and the bunker?   As it is, when you play right you bring the road more into play, if you play short to avoid that then you bring the bunker more into play.  Its hard to imagine any way could be found to improve upon it.

[TEPaul]

ChrisB:

Excellent thread.

Like you, I tend to think the ideal hole is the one that offers many and diverse options (and one that offers bunkering or some hazard to be directly challenged for an apparently preferrred following shot). I also very much admire holes that offer the less than obvious lines. To me width is a generally a big factor in some of the holes I think are ideal that way.

However, when we use the term "ideal", and define it to only include this type of hole I certainly wouldn't want to see any or every golf course offer just a multitude of holes like this.

One of the necessary ingredients of a course like NGLA that was very much intended by MacDonald to be the world's first "totally ideal" course--ie all 18 holes purposely constructed to be very good ones, or to have not a single weak one--one of his primary requirments was to offer every kind of available mix and variety imaginable--and the very multi optional and mysterious hole was not supposed to be the only type.

I've never seen the Road Hole but I would think opening up the left side all along to fairway as an option to play would make the hole even better.

Is it really easier to play the ball to the left of the Road Hole? I would doubt it. Maybe that takes the very high "other" out of the equation to some extent but is it a rather sure thing that if you play your third shot to the green from the left side of it that something terrible WON'T happen if you overrun it  to the highly penal right side? If it is NOT a sure thing I would think opening up the left of the Road Hole to more fairway would make it even better--certainly more optional.

And again, multi optionalism to me is sort of the essence of it all. But to be best, options should be used some of the time! Not all the time and certainly not NEVER. A conceptual option that is never or extremely rarely used is generally a less than well conceived option. At the base of it all is temptation, temptation, temptation. Sometimes a golfer should be seduced into trying the high risk, sometimes not. And the 'sometimes not' would seem to me to be something along the lines of more fairway down the left of the Road Hole!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

This is a great thread (as is it's sister thread on "anti-strategy").

Vis a vis the Road Hole, I very much agree (and have said here before) that the hole would be better if they stopped the relatively recent practice of growing cabbage-like rough on the left hand side of the fairway.  I remember vividly Tiger having a great heave and chop out of there in 2000, but I would have much preferred to see what he would have/could have done with all the strategic options that would have been placed before him if it had been fairway (or even light rough) where he was.  The "go down the left side and try to pitch back up the ROC green site" option was tried en masse by the Swedish team in the Dunhill Cup several years ago, when they were leading the US, and only needed "bogies" on 17 to assure victory.  As I remember it, one or two of them overcooked their second and ended up in Swilcan Burn in front of the 18th tee, and the three team scores were something like 6, 6, 7.  Needless to say, America won.

In effect. 17 TOC is now burdened with an unideal "maintenance meld."  It is still great, but could be a lot better.

In terms of the general gist of the initial post, I think Chris B is really onto something when he talks about uncertainty and open-endedness.  To me great (I think nothing is "ideal") holes have a fascinating changeability about them, depending on all sorts of factors, both external (i.e. wind, temperature, pin placements, fastness and firmness, etc.) and internal (what sort of game one has brought to the course that day, the state of your match, what sort of risk preference you have, etc.).  The 9th at CPC is a really good example of this, as is the 14th at Dornoch, as is the "Redan" at NGLA.

Vis a vis "strategy" and "anti-strategy", I think that the concepts of old just do not hold today, certainly for the best players, regardless of what equipment they use, and maybe even for us hackers.  I actually like what I see of that aerial of Bulle rock, because it DOES, it seems, give significant reward to the long bold shot over the lake to the island bit of fairway on the right.  Sure there are hazards to overcome, but with a wedge in hand, the expert player is going to be able to think "get it close for a 3" from that Position A, while the player who has bailed out to the left (as well as hackers) will have an "easier" chance to get on the green, but a much more dificult chance (given distance control issues and the contours of the green (?--don't know, haven't played there) to score a 3.  I think there is a huge amount of strategic challenge in that hole--just judging from the photo, of course!

[A_Clay_Man]

Ideal...hum. Rich touched on the internal/external factors but left off one of the more intrinsic aspects that makes holes like the ninth at CPC so awesome or ideal. And that is the esthetics or how it fits into its environs. I don't think a hole with the exact characteristics, size and shot options would be anywhere near as ideal if it were comprised of a different texture. i.e. grass rather than dune. Obviously this is truely in the eye of the beholder but it just seems so fundamental that when playing near or on that area of the pacific coast having the magnificaint dunes makes it all that much more ideal.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich;

Interesting point about the 9th at Bulle Rock, except for the fact that the type of player who will be able to hit and hold a short iron for birdie there is likely to be playing the hole at it's 478 yard, par four length.  This is a guess, but I think the carry from there is about 350 yards, requires a cut around trees, and the fairway is really small.  

At it's shorter "mens tee" length of 418, the carry is probably about 290.

I can also tell you that the green is very shallow coming in from that side, and I would guess only the very foolish or cerebrally incapacitated try that play.

 


Since we're on the topic of Bulle Rock and "anti-strategy" here, this is the 13th hole, playing significantly and constantly uphill to a par four of 476 from the tips and 438 from the middle tees.  The right side falls off into death on this dogleg right, but as you can see, there's not much reason to challenge it anyway.

 

It seems to be that Dye's new philosophy might be that he has largely given up strategy and is now just forcing players to play the LONG way around, while stretching his courses to 7,400+ from the tips.  I know that he hates doing it, as well, but has some strong words to say about those who've let technology get to this point.

[ian]

Chris, I like your thread.

"In the "Anti-Strategy" thread it was said that strategic course design that rewards successfully challeging a hazard is superior to course design that dictates always playing away from hazards."

I disagree with that statement, and I agree with your general premice that great startegy involves options.

The 14th hole at St. Andrews is, as you assesed, a much more facinating hole to play over and over due to the unlimited options.

You said, "My favorite holes seem to be those where I stand on the tee and ask "Where in the world should I play this shot?", where the "preferred position" is a mystery and not so obvious.  I may not know if I've played the hole "correctly" until I've finished it."

Or played it wrong a few times, and observe someone playing it right. An example is the 8th at St. Georges. This is a much malaigned hole due to its confusing target, and slopes that run against the (traditional) flow. Nobody can stand on the tee and see a sure strategy to be successful.

The hole is 210 yards into a hidden bowl. The green slopes steeply to the right. Any shot slightly short ends up well long. Any shot in the bunker is dead. Over the green means a downhill lie to a sharply cross-sloping green (take your 4).

The yellow circle represents the target for a player taking the safe route. This in a match is the route, since a par becomes the more common outcome. The chip is uphill and funnels to the pin, because all pins have to favour the centre. That will win you this hole more often than not.

This photo is from behind the green and illustrates the severe bowl and the slope running to the left. Everyone seems to take a direct line at the flag regardless of location.
 

You asked, "Do you believe in the principle that "a shot that successfully challenges a hazard should result in a preferred position"

No, I believe a shot correctly placed, shall result in a perferred position.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ian;

I like the look of that hole a great deal, but are you saying that a shot that successfully challenges (carries) the short left hand bunker and steep slope and lands on the green (I'm assuming the green will hold that shot) isn't rewarded better than playing from the short right off-green location where one has to chip and putt for par?

[Eric Pevoto]

Mike,

In both pictures of Bulle Rock, would you say all those inside bunkers are along what could be called the "line of instinct?"  

Eric

[ian]

Mike, If you can find the middle to back of that green on the fly, it will stay. I didn't make that clear did I? The problem is that the green starts at fourty feet and narrows to 20 feet. The green also starts at 2+ percent and steepens to 5% by the time it gets to the top. The target area is extremely small for such a long iron, and the margin for error gets smaller as you head up.

The older members play front right (or slightly off), regardless of pin position, and hit a simple chip below the hole. They make an awful lot of pars. The good players chase the pin and have a great deal of difficulty hitting an akward chip to a green that runs away. They make a lot of bogies.

As the thread for Shinnecock #10 pointed out, strategy is sometimes not as simple as it initially seems. I think all well designed course should provide an opportunity for aggressive play, its what makes golf exciting; but the great ones, reward the choices from the head over choices from the heart. It just adds more to the game.

The greatest advice I ever got playing was from an outstanding amatuer lady. She said sometimes good golf is more about what you don't try, than it is about what you can hit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()