[Tim Gavrich]

I was just looking at the Hidden Creek course profile, and the following passage jumped out at me:

"In an attempt to give every hole immediate visual impact, many modern architects in the past two decades defined the green to such a clear degree that it inadvertently became an easier target.  In the case of the 14th, Coore & Crenshaw could have been easily highlighted the green through the placement of mounds and bunkers.  Instead, they kept the 14th green as an extension of the fairway with the green even slightly below its surrounds in spots and no bunkers down its left side. From the tee, the golfer is hard pressed to determine where on this 51 yard (!) deep green the hole actually is."

I say this under the assumption that HC's flags all look the same, and that there's no indication of where the pin is on a green:

Why is it preferable that the player can't tell how far onto the green the pin is situated?  If it is not possible to estimate whether a pin is, how is that in the spirit of the game?

I have no problem with visual deception, but if the success of your shot comes down to pure guesswork, I don't see how that makes the shot "fun" or "interesting."  Three different types of pin/flag (for front, middle, and back) does not seem unreasonable, or detrimental to the integrity of the game

Thoughts?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

The first time I played HC, the deception on # 14 was so good that I thought the bunker at the back of the green, fronted the green.

Why should I have been entitled to know exactly where the hole was located.

That's what your eyes are for, and mine aren't good.

Some golfers want to be spoon fed, shortcutting or undercutting all of the challenges.

I prefer that some responsibility remain on the golfers shoulders, eyes and brains.

[Ryan Farrow]

Tim some of my most memorable shots were from the wrong fairway and I just went with my gut, pulled out an iron that I thought would hit the green and stuck it. I don't have a problem with people wanting to know the distance but if you don't and you a playing a leisurely game suck it up and just hit the damn ball.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I'll never forget the first time I p;layed the 13th Hole o' the Cross on the Old Course. From the fairway, I aimed totally the wrong direction. I thought the pin was left. It ended up being the 5th pin, whichis essentially the same green, sort of! (It's the largest green in the world, I think. Of course it's a double green.)

Tim,
Deception is one of the last true defenses the Sport has against technology. You want that gone too? Why not be a sporting man, go out there and figure it out without the stupid yardage guides, without the REALLY stupid range finders, without the REALLY STUPID yardages on the sprinkler heads and the reallynatural for Tuscany, EYEtalian Cypress trees denoting 150 yards. Go out there and figure it out for yourself. After a bit you won't need any of that other useless crap and who knows, you may garner yourself a soul while doing it!

(Just joking)

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,

The first time I played HC, the deception on # 14 was so good that I thought the bunker at the back of the green, fronted the green.

Why should I have been entitled to know exactly where the hole was located.

That's what your eyes are for, and mine aren't good.

Some golfers want to be spoon fed, shortcutting or undercutting all of the challenges.

I prefer that some responsibility remain on the golfers shoulders, eyes and brains.

Pat--
I don't believe that knowing whether the pin is in the front, middle, or back third of the green takes much responsibility off the golfer's shoulders.  The game is (in my opinion) difficult, interesting, and fun enough when you have an idea of what you're trying to do.  When stripped of the essential information, the shot becomes something of a crapshoot, and few people like a crapshoot, especially when there is a score on the line (as is almost always the case).

Wouldn't you feel excessively slighted if you hit a great shot to exactly where the pin seems to be (because there's no indication that it's somewhere else), only to find that you have a 60-foot putt over hill-and-dale?  I know this brings the contentious issue of fairness into play, but I don't see what positive purpose is served by an architect thumbing his nose at the player in such a way as to preclude success except by accident.  Doesn't seem very (capital-S) Sporting to me.

PS-- I apologize for lacking clarity, but I'm not looking to be shown "exactly" where the hole is located.  I think that three divisions of the green depth-wise is sufficient.  This way, the player must still use his/her eyes in order to get the best result.  I don't feel that that is too much to ask, but it is only my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

How did people play golf for all of those years before pin sheets, GPS systems and yardage markers ?

How did the game manage to not only survive for all of those years, but to prosper ?

How is it doing today with all of those distance aids ?

Architects don't provide measurements to and from every distance, owners do.

If I hit a great shot and misjudged it, then I'd better work on my judgement skills.

I hit a lot of "ginky" or feel shots, and I can usually judge distance reasonably well, so, whatever happens... happens.

You seem to require more in the way of "aids" when playing golf.

I'd therefore recommend against playing Pine Valley or Merion. where they're absent.

[Tim Gavrich]

I'll never forget the first time I p;layed the 13th Hole o' the Cross on the Old Course. From the fairway, I aimed totally the wrong direction. I thought the pin was left. It ended up being the 5th pin, whichis essentially the same green, sort of! (It's the largest green in the world, I think. Of course it's a double green.)

Tim,
Deception is one of the last true defenses the Sport has against technology. You want that gone too? Why not be a sporting man, go out there and figure it out without the stupid yardage guides, without the REALLY stupid range finders, without the REALLY STUPID yardages on the sprinkler heads and the reallynatural for Tuscany, EYEtalian Cypress trees denoting 150 yards. Go out there and figure it out for yourself. After a bit you won't need any of that other useless crap and who knows, you may garner yourself a soul while doing it!

(Just joking)

Tommy--
I agree that deception is one of the golf's great defenses.  I just fail to see how giving the golfer "some" (that is to say, slightly more than no) idea of the general whereabouts of the hole (that is his/her goal, after all) completely closes the door of deception.  Perhaps it is a bit of a slippery slope; I just have a hard time justifying the case of the 14th at hidden Creek, where it is up to the golfer to almost blindly hazard a guess (that is my interpretation of the passage) as to how far onto the green the pin is located.  With a 51 yard deep green, the pin could potentially be anywhere from 5 to 46 yards from the front edge of the green.  That's an awful lot of uncertainty.  At least the red-white-blue flag system would allow a ballpark estimate to be made, which (I think) is only fair (or Sporting).

If the golfer has no idea whatsoever as to where the hole is, any strategy disappears, and the shot comes down to a choice between as many as five clubs.  But, the golfer is likely to take the middle club (Law of Averages), so if that pin happens to be located in an especially intriguing region, there may be no chance that the required shot is hit, except by dumb luck.

Happy New Year to everyone.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tim,
 I've played Hidden Creek's #14 and I concur with Pat and Ran, that the beauty of the hole lies in it's deception of where the pin actually is placed. To me that is a sign of architectural greatness if an architect can decieve you thinking it's closer or further away thenn it really is. It isn't gimmicky or cheap. It's as pure as golf architecture as you can get.

You want defintion, well then that's what Fazio does, and he makes you feel all warm and comfy inside, but frankly speaking, I know each and everytime I'm at Rustic Canyon's 10th, and I'm trying to figure out exactly where the pin is and I'm stumped, that to me is a green defending itself admirably. I'm thinking negative thoughts which lead to bad shots. To me Great golf architecture is when a hole can have you talking to yourself, doubting yourself.

I challenge you to do this:

Throw away all yardage devices and Yardage aids. Stop using sprinker heads and decorative trees and figure out yourself what 100+/- yards is. Figure out what 150 +/- yards is. And so on and so on.

When your done, you'll be a better judge of distance and you won't be telling yourself that you can't identify, and that it's a glaring weakness.

Just my thoughts....

[astavrides]

I would like to know not just front, middle, back, but how many paces deep, and how many paces from the left or right of the green the pin is. One reason is that if I hit one stiff, I know I hit a good shot, and its not just that I got lucky.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,

How did people play golf for all of those years before pin sheets, GPS systems and yardage markers ?

How did the game manage to not only survive for all of those years, but to prosper ?

How is it doing today with all of those distance aids ?

Architects don't provide measurements to and from every distance, owners do.

If I hit a great shot and misjudged it, then I'd better work on my judgement skills.

I hit a lot of "ginky" or feel shots, and I can usually judge distance reasonably well, so, whatever happens... happens.

You seem to require more in the way of "aids" when playing golf.

I'd therefore recommend against playing Pine Valley or Merion. where they're absent.

Are you arguing that golf is doing poorly because of the invention of distance-measuring devices and yardage books?  I don't believe that.

I know that hitting these "ginky" shots is an integral part of the game, and I am not disputing that.  And I personally don't need many of these aids.  I mean, I'll get a yardage book if it's available, but I can do without one.  I don't walk off yardages; I just estimate the distance by eyeballing it based on the nearest sprinkler head.  I wouldn't say that I "require" all of this, but I just fail to see how having just a teensy bit of help takes the judgement factor out of the game.

In terms of my original, specific question, if there is no way whatsoever to tell whether the pin is 10 yards onto the green or 40 yards (which is the implication of the passage I highlighted), that is neither strategically interesting nor a challenge to one's judgement skills, unless the player happens to be a robot.

[Jason Blasberg]

I believe that visual deception is critical to solid design but I also think it imperative to provide the player with the most accurate yardage to the pin as possible.  If the deception is good enough it causes far more trouble than just eyeballing it b/c you end up saying, "this can't play 150" and when you club down and it does the archie has prevailed.  

Really good deception gets you multiple times!

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim,
 I've played Hidden Creek's #14 and I concur with Pat and Ran, that the beauty of the hole lies in it's deception of where the pin actually is placed. To me that is a sign of architectural greatness if an architect can decieve you thinking it's closer or further away thenn it really is. It isn't gimmicky or cheap. It's as pure as golf architecture as you can get.

I don't understand.  Do you mean that a mark of "architectural greatness" is when the designer makes it impossible for the player to intentionally hit the correct shot?  Is it "as pure as golf architecture...can get" if the only way for a player to hit a good shot is by dumb luck?  How is that in the spirit of the game?

[Matt_Cohn]

The question is, do you believe that visual judgement of distance and location should be a required skill?

Some people would say, "Yes - that skill should be part of the game, just like reading break and judging pace on putts."

Others would say, "No - the golfer is entitled to know the challenges in front of him. The real test is whether the player can then correctly pull off the shot."

Doesn't a hole become less strategic when the player is lacking information about it?

The Hidden Creek #14 review concludes, "The less is more principle applied here helps reinforce that the ground is one's friend at Hidden Creek."

OK, but how are you supposed to use the ground to your advantage when you don't know where you want your ball to go? How are you supposed to use anything to your advantage when your target is unknown? Doesn't it result that when you're less able to use course features to your advantage, the strategic element is diminished?

[TEPaul]

I'll take even greater deception in architecture than the 14th green at HC.

Here's some of the coolest deception I've ever heard of;

It is not unusual at Merion West to have golfers who are not familiar with the course play from the 15th tee to the 5th green and to not even become aware of their mistake until they reach the 6th tee AGAIN, since that particular hole is one of the most memorable you will ever see.

This actually happened twice when they had the state or GAP Mid-Amateur championship at Merion West one year.

Hell, when I first played Pacific Dunes I never had any idea where the hell I was on that golf course. I love stuff like that.

[JESII]

Forgetting the philosophy behind the topic question for a second...the hole in question is 200 yards...unless we're kidding ourselves, what difference does it make?

As to the topic question...I guess you really will hate #13 at Royal County Down...the pin would be hidden if it were a telephone pole...

[Patrick_Mucci]

In terms of my original, specific question, if there is no way whatsoever to tell whether the pin is 10 yards onto the green or 40 yards (which is the implication of the passage I highlighted), that is neither strategically interesting nor a challenge to one's judgement skills, unless the player happens to be a robot.

Would you classifiy the 17th at Prestwick, the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11th and 16th at NGLA strategically uninteresting holes ?

The 5th at Old Marsh ?

The 9th and 10th at Shinnecock ?

The 1st, 2nd, 12th, 15th 17th and 18th at Pine Valley.

The 1st, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 17 and 18th at ANGC ?

[Michael Christensen]

easy way to know where pin is.....ask your caddie, or if no caddie walk up to the green to see where it is

We went to single color flags a few years ago and on our 2nd (an uphill par 3) we just walk up to green check the pin position

It may slow down play, but don't give me a pin sheet or distance-colored flag, tough......

[Patrick_Mucci]

easy way to know where pin is.....ask your caddie, or if no caddie walk up to the green to see where it is

We went to single color flags a few years ago and on our 2nd (an uphill par 3) we just walk up to green check the pin position

It may slow down play, but don't give me a pin sheet or distance-colored flag, tough......

Michael,

I believe that walking up to the green to determine hole location is prohibited by Rule 6-7.

But, more importantly, it's not fair to the group behind you, and the group behind them, etc., etc..

If a member of every group were to do that, rounds would be extended substantially.

How far from the hole are you going to be if you land in the middle of the 2nd green ?

Years ago a study was done on a par 3.
In one scenario, golfers were given the exact hole location and
in the other scenario, the flagstick was removed so that the golfers didn't know where the hole was.

The average score was lower in the second scenario.

How important is the exact location of the hole to you ?

What's your handicap ?

[Tim Gavrich]

In terms of my original, specific question, if there is no way whatsoever to tell whether the pin is 10 yards onto the green or 40 yards (which is the implication of the passage I highlighted), that is neither strategically interesting nor a challenge to one's judgement skills, unless the player happens to be a robot.

Would you classifiy the 17th at Prestwick, the 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11th and 16th at NGLA strategically uninteresting holes ?

The 5th at Old Marsh ?

The 9th and 10th at Shinnecock ?

The 1st, 2nd, 12th, 15th 17th and 18th at Pine Valley.

The 1st, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 17 and 18th at ANGC ?

I have not had the privilege of playing any of those golf courses.  Perhaps I would feel differently after doing so.  But if the only way to play the holes successfully is dumb luck (vis à vis the approach shot), then I have a problem with that.  I would cease to have a problem if there was a red-white-blue flag system.  I have yet to hear why that is such an outrageously unreasonable and detrimental-to-the-game request.

[Michael Christensen]

I don't believe there is any rule on walking up to the green to determine location......we see it on the PGA Tour week in and week out.....as long as you don't hold up play, there should be no problem.

Our 2nd hole is a slanted par-3.......if you above the hole, you are in big trouble...as will putt off the green unless you putt it sideways.

Currently a 9 handicap and exact pin location is important....from 150 in I am pretty solid.  I am interested in having all information available when I play.  Providing a simple yardage shouldn't be that hard.

[Matt_Cohn]

Patrick,

This thread started in regards to a semi-blind par-3. I'm not familiar with Old Marsh and Prestwick but I know that none of the other holes on your list are par 3's. I would be interested to hear your take on a strategic/interesting par-3 where the hole location is in significant doubt from the tee? That is, one where the green is large enough that just shooting for the center of the green is not a satisfactory-enough option for a good player.

In a few minutes of thinking I haven't come up with one yet.

The complaint from a good player, I think, is that the lack of information does not allow him to use his skill and precision to enhance his prospects.

And that brings me to my second point. You mentioned that most players often score higher when they know exactly where the pin is. When a player is tempted to aim more directly at the target and closer to trouble, their score will often increase.

Isn't this the same definition as a line of charm?

Tempt a player with the vision and knowledge of exactly where they want to go, and they'll often forsake the safer, smarter play.

To me this seems much more strategic than the alternative!

[RSLivingston_III]

Interesting thread.
I didn't realize how far the modern game has gravitated away from any expectation of having to visualize a shot or eyeball distances.
Another skill set bitting the dust!

[Tim Gavrich]

It is a rare case indeed in which the savy player cannot gather enough information to make a smart play.

...and yet my exposure of one of these cases is being defended.  Does this mean that it's permissible for an architect to bar a player from having ANY idea of what shot to hit, even when all factors are considered.  Because if you ask me, why not just roll dice?  What's the difference?

[RSLivingston_III]

It is a rare case indeed in which the savy player cannot gather enough information to make a smart play.

...and yet my exposure of one of these cases is being defended.  Does this mean that it's permissible for an architect to bar a player from having ANY idea of what shot to hit, even when all factors are considered.  Because if you ask me, why not just roll dice?  What's the difference?

If you have played the course before, you should have a good idea of what is required. It is sort of impossible to bar a player form having ANY idea of what is there. Any course of value is one you would play more than once. I don't know of a course where everything was laid out for me that I would ever go back and play again. I always thought requiring mental visualization of a shot  was a cornerstone principal.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim Gavrich,

What's your handicap ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()