[JC Jones]

I'm taking up billiards...

We should be so lucky

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

Isn't one of the architect's missions to present something fun/playable that players want to come back and play again?  I agree, the architect should challenge us and there is a balance between fun and challenging that must be struck.  Having one HHA or forced carry doesn't make a course too tough, but many could certainly be a detraction.

I don't believe a school test is a fair comparison.  The point of school is to prepare students for the future and build their intelligence.  While challenging courses may prepare golfers for future rounds, that's not the primary point.  The point is fun! Golf is game after all.

Pat,

What he said.  Of all the possible challenges a gca can throw at the golfer, we may as well use the best 36 challenge types we can find.  I think a long forced carry is in a multi way tie for 37th.

[Dave McCollum]

Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting.  It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.

That, Dave, is unfair. Ivan was perfectly polite and, as far as I can tell, the answers to his question have been similarly polite.

I agree that Ivan was perfectly polite and asked honest questions for discussion.  Notice something?  The only person that didn't reply was Ivan.  The hornets nest, myself included, jumped all over his initial post and pretty much swarmed around his head, stinging him into submission to give up his apocryphal views.  I think most of us have said something offhand, maybe even stupid, and been put down quickly. 
That doesn't promote discussion.  There is WAY too much group-think seeking consensus going on here in my view.  People didn't discuss Ivan's ideas.  They told him why he was wrong.  In my own defense, I told him what I liked and why.  My subjective opinion.  Not that he was misguided, just what I liked.  What's unfair about that?  My later comment was sarcastic, snarky and meant to be humorous.  OK, I should know better that sarcasm is tricky in text.  Guilty as charged.  Here's my literal thought:  Ivan, keep posting; don't worry about everyone jumping on you; your voices is as important as any other; don't worry about it;  it's just a bunch of overly verbal golf nuts looking for something to talk about.

I love this site.  I haven't met a single person here that I didn't like.  I don't expect to.  Almost everyone is interested in the same things that interest me.  OK, got that out of the way.  Let's just say that not every thread is my cup of tea.  Frankly, some of them, particularly those that go on for hundreds of pages, seem downright stupid to me.  No problem, I don't have to read them.  And I don't have to comment and make a case for why I think they are stupid.  Just read something else.  I might poke a little fun at the participants who have wasted days talking about nothing.  That's hardly unfair.  It's a matter of perspective--mine!--and they are perfectly right to ignore me if they want.               

[Paul Gray]

Wow, Ivan, seems like you tried to give the hornets’ nest a high lob and it landed on your head. Don’t worry, keep posting.  It gives the golf crazies on this site something to do.

That, Dave, is unfair. Ivan was perfectly polite and, as far as I can tell, the answers to his question have been similarly polite.

I agree that Ivan was perfectly polite and asked honest questions for discussion.  Notice something?  The only person that didn't reply was Ivan.  The hornets nest, myself included, jumped all over his initial post and pretty much swarmed around his head, stinging him into submission to give up his apocryphal views.  I think most of us have said something offhand, maybe even stupid, and been put down quickly. 
That doesn't promote discussion.  There is WAY too much group-think seeking consensus going on here in my view.  People didn't discuss Ivan's ideas.  They told him why he was wrong.  In my own defense, I told him what I liked and why.  My subjective opinion.  Not that he was misguided, just what I liked.  What's unfair about that?  My later comment was sarcastic, snarky and meant to be humorous.  OK, I should know better that sarcasm is tricky in text.  Guilty as charged.  Here's my literal thought:  Ivan, keep posting; don't worry about everyone jumping on you; your voices is as important as any other; don't worry about it;  it's just a bunch of overly verbal golf nuts looking for something to talk about.

I love this site.  I haven't met a single person here that I didn't like.  I don't expect to.  Almost everyone is interested in the same things that interest me.  OK, got that out of the way.  Let's just say that not every thread is my cup of tea.  Frankly, some of them, particularly those that go on for hundreds of pages, seem downright stupid to me.  No problem, I don't have to read them.  And I don't have to comment and make a case for why I think they are stupid.  Just read something else.  I might poke a little fun at the participants who have wasted days talking about nothing.  That's hardly unfair.  It's a matter of perspective--mine!--and they are perfectly right to ignore me if they want.               

I can't say that I disagree with the essence of your post. I'm simply not sure that anyone deserved the 'golf crazy' tag.

There are threads on here wihich go on forever about how Tiger Woods has started farting differently and such threads seem stupid to me. I'm not sure however that a thread where people passionate explain their love of the ground game is quite the same thing. And I often wonder when accusations of 'group think' emerge whether it was really such a bad thing that Colt, Mackenzie, Ross et al all came from such an apparently narrow church, assuming those commenting on the perceived 'group think' would hold the ODGs to the same standard.

But I do hope Ivan hasn't been deterred from posting, hoping thereof that he hhasn't found any of the responses to be offensive.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Ivan

I don't wish to pile on so I won't.  I do think golfers who always want a way out on every course are misguided. There is a time and a place for forced carries over water, but they should be reserved for the right situation using the right hazard.  This almost universally means the hazard shouldn't be a long forced carry.  Instead, the placement of the hazard should be the worry of archies.  There are a lot of short forced carries that are wonderful holes, but I am struggling to think of many which involve a 75 or 100 yard carry. 

Can you tell me about any long carry water holes you think are great an have you seen older people, kids and women trying tom play these holes?

Ciao

Two famous holes on the Monterey Peninsula require significant caries.  The 8th at Pebble and the 16th at Cypress.  One of the few proponents of an occasional carry on this thread was Jason Thurman.  In his post he does say those occasional carries should have alternative routes, and both 8 at Pebble and 16 at Cypress have alternative options.  I have played Pebble a number of times with different levels of golfers and all really get a kick out of the carry at 8.  The look back on 8 is the most spectacular view in golf I've experienced.  I have never played Cypress but I can assure you I will not lay up and don't figure many visitors do.

Interestingly Ivan sites Rustic in his post as unspectacular.  When playing from the appropriate tees the 3rd, 7th and 16th have some pretty enjoyable risk reward caries (the par 3 6th also requires a pretty decent carry).  The 3rd and the 7th give players options.  Unfortunately I've played the 16th from the back tees when I could not make the carry.

[Dave McCollum]

Paul,

I think you are preaching to the choir.  I was, after all, one of the first to chime in and respond to Ivan.  Ivan can speak for himself.  I just found it a little weird that the thread ran for three pages deconstructing every word he said before letting him speak for himself.  Maybe that’s what he wanted: to stir up the hornets’ nest.  The group-think thing did seem implicit in his initial post—“…why ALL the hatred?”  I don’t know.  I was just curious to hear his response.

As for the “golf crazy” and “golf nut” bits, don’t you think, as a group, we are a bit esoteric?  When compared to any notion of “mainstream” thinking, we don’t seem to fit in very prominently.  I think that suits most of us.  That’s why we’re here:  to challenge mainstream views and nudge them in a different direction if we can, however infinitesimally.  To me, that doesn’t mean our own sacred cows should not be challenged from time to time or that we have nothing to learn from the masses of golfers, just as we challenge their views, illusions, beliefs, and myths.

[Dave McCollum]

It's all good.  Carry on.

[Paul Gray]

Dave,

Probably fair to say that we broadly agree. Certainly no one gets a free pass from me.

I do equally think that all too often we pat ourselves on the back for being free thinkers; whatever that means. The reality is that we're just generally a bit better read/experienced in the subject, and only then because it happens to be a subject we have an interest in. All any of us are actually doing is standing on the shoulders [of giants], not shifting any paradigms. It's that which leads me to argue that minimalism, and this is not an insult, is nothing more than Golden Age mark II.

[Dave McCollum]

Paul,

Well said. 

[Doug Siebert]

Ivan:  I have a simple question for you.  Which putt would give you more satisfaction when you hole it:   A dead flat, dead straight 40 footer, or a double-breaking 40 footer on a wild green that moves 4-5 feet up and left and then 7 or 8 feet down and to the right at the end?  Why?

I'll raise that question with a second thought.  Taking just the straight 40 footer, which is more fun, ramming it home on an uphill putt on a slow green that takes 2.5 seconds to go in the hole, or hitting a slippery downhill putt on a fast green that takes 12 seconds to go in?

John Kirk postulated a law a few years back on GCA that went something like "the enjoyment of a shot is proportional to the time from when the shot is struck to the when the ball stops moving".  I'd long thought that, but hadn't boiled it down into a simple sentence like he did (anyone who reads my posts knows I too often spend five minutes typing half a page at 100 wpm rather than taking four and a half minutes thinking and writing a concise 100 words that says the same thing)

[Joe Hancock]

Doug,

What you meant to say is " I'm not concise".

Joe

[Peter Pallotta]

Doug,

What you meant to say is " I'm not concise".

Joe

 

If Ran's new directives are meant to cull such architecturally un-edifying but nonetheless humorous bits of whimsy, I'm gonna delete my own profile, and take Grandpa Joe with me!

And that's all I have say (concisely) about that!*

Peter

Did you notice what I did there, paying homage to Dan Kelly while simultaneously tipping my hat to Joe?

[Tim_Weiman]

Ivan,

One of my most memorable rounds of golf was at Little Met which is part of the Metroparks courses in Cleveland, Ohio.

I once stumbled upon a document that Stanley Thompson, the famed Canadian golf architect, designed the course. Maybe he did. I don't know. But Little Met is not a place to study golf architecture.

Or maybe it is.

Little Met is a 9 hole course about 2,600 yards. Really, there are no interesting or challenging holes. No good greens or bunkers. And, there are certainly no forced carries.

What you will find at Little Met is what it is like to be a beginning golfer and how hard the game really is.

So, one day I went down to Little Met and got fixed up up a guy who was, to be kind, a really bad golfer. No way he could compete with a 36 handicap. But, there was one thing I noticed about the guy: he seemed to be having a great time. Being an awful golfer didn't bother him. In short, he seemed to love the game.

When we reach the 8th hole, I finally addressed him about how much he seemed to enjoy playing. Yes, he assured me, "he loved it".

Then, I made the mistake of saying "yes, I love golf too, especially when you get to play good courses".

The guy immediately replied that he once played a good course and never wanted to do that again.

When I asked why, he said: "I already played a good course. There was this hole where you had to hit the ball 100 yards over water. I never want to do that again!".

[mike_beene]

If there is a way around such as the 8th at Pebble, I do not define that as a forced carry. Perhaps others agree and we may have some definitional confusion in the thread.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Mike if that's the way you want to go with it I only know of one hole in the world with a forced carry.  The 14th at Coeur d'Alene.

Putting down the path is always an option, even at the 17th at Sawgrass.   
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/playerschamp08/columns/story?id=3385374

[Sean_A]

Ivan

I don't wish to pile on so I won't.  I do think golfers who always want a way out on every course are misguided. There is a time and a place for forced carries over water, but they should be reserved for the right situation using the right hazard.  This almost universally means the hazard shouldn't be a long forced carry.  Instead, the placement of the hazard should be the worry of archies.  There are a lot of short forced carries that are wonderful holes, but I am struggling to think of many which involve a 75 or 100 yard carry. 

Can you tell me about any long carry water holes you think are great an have you seen older people, kids and women trying tom play these holes?

Ciao

Two famous holes on the Monterey Peninsula require significant caries.  The 8th at Pebble and the 16th at Cypress.  One of the few proponents of an occasional carry on this thread was Jason Thurman.  In his post he does say those occasional carries should have alternative routes, and both 8 at Pebble and 16 at Cypress have alternative options.  I have played Pebble a number of times with different levels of golfers and all really get a kick out of the carry at 8.  The look back on 8 is the most spectacular view in golf I've experienced.  I have never played Cypress but I can assure you I will not lay up and don't figure many visitors do.

Joe

My use of "forced carry" means no way around.  I am not sure if this is the same as your "significant carry", but we may be talking about different things. Although, it would be interesting if people could come up examples of good forced carries of a significant distance...say over 50 yards.  There are surely many, but they may mainly be HHA type hazards rather than water.

I still prefer the type of carry where if one fails to meet the test, there is no more risk of losing the ball than any normal shot.  Knob to knob type holes serve this purpose well.  To hit the green one must make the carry, but it isn't death if you don't.   

Ciao

[Martin Toal]

Royal County Down has a number of forced carries, and the patently for failing to make them is usually 3 (or more) off the tee. The 2nd, 9th and 11th are all par 4 or 5s which require carried tee shots of some length, although perhaps the visual intimidation exceeds the true challenge, and the par 3 4th has nothing but trouble between the tee and green.

[Joe Sponcia]

To be fair, I think there's some merit to Ivan's suggestion that an occasional forced carry is actually something TRUE high handicappers get a kick out of. I'm not talking about the high handicappers on this forum, who play competitive golf with handicaps in the upper teens. I'm talking about the 35 handicappers who play in t-shirts at the local course with $25 weekend greens fees, many of whom are beginners and some of whom will "catch the bug" and become avid players in a few years.

The carry has to be reasonable - 100 yards at most from the "white tees" where most of those guys play, and less from the "red tees." A course also shouldn't have more than 1 or 2. But I have a ton of friends who have just started playing in the last few years, hit it crooked (several are former football players who hit it very long and crooked, while others are very short hitters), and very rarely make a par playing by the rules. Those guys love the game, and they love their occasional pars and very rare birdies, but they don't make enough of either to keep them coming back.

One thing that Pete Dye says in "Bury me in a Pot Bunker" that really stuck out to me is that he likes to give high handicappers some shots that are right at the limit of their ability, knowing that when they pull it off it'll be far more memorable than any par that they make or score that they shoot. That's certainly true for my buddies, and while they have about a 1 in 25 chance of parring any hole, they have at least a 50% chance of clearing 100 yard forced carry off the tee and it's a guarantee that they'll have a little pep in their step after pulling it off.

Of course, it works best if there's an alternate route around the forced carry for the older, savvier golfer who doesn't get the same thrill out of pulling off a 100 yard carry and just wants to be able to keep playing. And any course is greatly improved if the ball moves a bit when it lands. The best courses offer interesting aerial shots and interesting ways to use the ground as well.

The biggest issue with the proliferation of aerial play has been this idea that long, high shots should be "rewarded" by stopping quickly. Guys who can hit it high but have little trajectory control have worked loudly to create the perception that good golf and ballstriking is about playing drop-and-stop golf. In reality, the best ballstrikers with the strongest aerial games understand how to control flight and trajectory and land the ball where needed to get the best result. That's why, as others have pointed out, the best ballstrikers rise to the top on fast and firm courses and particularly links courses. Playing the game through the air does not exclude using the ground as well, and a lot of guys who claim they want a "good test of ballstriking" really just want to make sure they don't get stuck on a course that requires them to actually hit shots instead of just make drop-and-stop repeated golf swings.

Jason,

I would tend to agree here.  I have been going on multiple golf trips for years to Myrtle and have seen the same thing play out at the old Wild Wing Hummingbird (Jeff will remember this) course and TPC of Myrtle Beach.  Some forced carries, with many of them less than 100 yards from the 'proper' box, they tend to give the player a feeling of accomplishment to navigate them despite a double-bogey. 

Jeff,

I anecdotally can say that of the 400 members at my club, only about 10% can pull off carries of 230 + yards...and these are very avid players.  I would think the number would be half for those that play half the rounds annually, no?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

For the record, I didn't design Hummingbird, Willard Byrd did, and frankly, I don't recall much of any of the other three courses there, although I did play them all at various times.

As to the driving distances, there are times when I figure the average drive should probably be much shorter than it is, but some of those studies were aimed at finding out what is really happening out there for various reasons.  While all are a small sample size, I would trust them over any observers anecdotes, although if I was going to err in using those stats, I would err slightly on the side of caution.

I recall doing some double fairway holes, and the exact distance (from all tees) was always a point of hot debate.  I recall pulling the carry distance back from the max on one hole, and it ended up being the route nearly everyone took.  Put it too far out from the tee, and I have seen them never get used, and then eliminated.  Probably not surprising, and to be honest, the USGA study, literally with tee shot distances all over the map, but sort of clustered around 260, 230, 190, and so forth, pretty much matches my "anecdotal" observations over the years, with 225-230 predominating.

Design wise, all of this goes to prove what CB McDonald and most of the GA guys figured out a century or so ago - angled hazards work better than cross hazards.

As to carries, I am all for them, and believe that the option to go around is what makes them more interesting.  You feel like an idiot if you try and fail, when a safe option is available, but just feel frustrated if you have to carry something and cannot do it.  Next time you play that hole, your failure figures into your thinking.

[George Pazin]

Ivan, Jeff, et. al.

At some point, isn't one of the architect's missions, to present a test to the golfer ?

Isn't a forced carry an architectural test ?

In school, if you fail the test, aren't you supposed to study more/harder ?

Should the test be dumbed down ?

Yikes, what a stupid question.

The overwhelming number of forced carries in all of golf are not tests at all, other than to lousy golfers. A 150 yard carry might have been a test when Pine Valley was originally designed, or even when woods were actually wood and mishits didn't travel nearly as far, but now it's merely a barrier to entry for beginning or casual golfers.

For Pine Valley, that strikes me as entirely appropriate. For most other courses, not so much... Many forced carries today are the top shot bunkers of our time.

This is of course not at all true for forced carries on par 3s, which I don't mind. It just struck me that Ivan's post wasn't really addressing those.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,

The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.

Why all the fuss ?

[George Pazin]

Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,

The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.

Why all the fuss ?

I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?

Merry Christmas, Pat!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer & George Pazin,

The "forced" carry on # 7 at Pine Valley is barely 90 yards.

Why all the fuss ?

I will answer if you answer this: What is the point of a 90 yard carry?

The point of a 90 yard carry is twofold.

1     To make you think and establish tactics
2     To execute your tactical plan and shots

Merry Christmas, Pat!

Ditto

[George Pazin]

I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!

And that's why all the fuss.

To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling. A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot. And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life. I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.

But maybe that's just me!

[JMEvensky]

I guess that's where I disagree. I think the point of a 90 yard carry is to intimidate lesser golfers and discourage beginners, seniors and women who lack length. I can't imagine anyone else even noticing it. It's solely to punish those less fortunate. As if they need to be punished!

And that's why all the fuss.

To me, a forced carry like the 16th - or even the 15th - at Cypress is thrilling. A 100 yard carry to the fairway is just someone's way of annoying those of us who are prone to the occasional absolute duff shot. And that happens more often to casual golfers than it probably should, but that's life. I hit enough really nice shots that most people I play with are shocked at what my final score is (I do try to play by all the rules, save the occasional lost ball drop, where I add 2 strokes). I find nothing thrilling or exciting about a carry that I can make with a wedge. I find them annoying.

But maybe that's just me!

I don't understand why you think a 140 yard carry with a 7 or 8 iron (CPC 15) is thrilling but never with a driver. Assuming a golf course isn't a steady dose of forced carries,why single out the occasional driver?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()