Golf Club Atlas

GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 09:01:44 AM

Title: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 09:01:44 AM
Tim Weiman would seemingly like us to believe that neither interest or challenge on tee shots matter.  He claims that the skilled golfer is such a low percentage of all players that the effects on them shouldn't be accounted for, and for the rest of us, just making contact is the challenge, so giving us any more doesn't matter either.  He also allows no difference between challenge and interest off the tee.

I wonder how many real golfers believe this.  If this were all so, why wouldn't we just play par 3 courses?  

We play courses that require full tee shots BECAUSE tee shots matter.  They're the most fun shots to hit, the result of them sets up our success or failure on the rest of the golf hole, and really without them the game is TOO short, too compact. Providing challenge and interest to such shots is fundamental to the game.  Give too much challenge and the golfer gets frustrated, being allowed to achieve no success.  Give too little interest, and the golfer is bored, feeling he might as well just be slugging balls on the driving range.  A great course has a happy medium on this, or if it doesn't, it makes up for such in other areas.

It's such a simple case, this is all that need be said.  Thoughts?

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 03, 2003, 09:13:22 AM
Tom Huckaby:

Let's be careful to properly characterize my point of view.

What got this discussion started was a statement about how much weight should be given to providing "enough challenge" to "skilled" golfers.

Your headline "The Case That Tee Shots Do Matter" goes in a completely different direction.

I never even addressed the subject of how important tee shots are for ALL golfers.

Tom, that was very clearly laid out in the assumptions I made in making the case about the importance of tee shots for "skilled" golfers.

Before going on, would you kindly acknowledge misrepresenting my point of view?
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 09:19:20 AM
Tim:

You misrepresented my point of view, and that of David Wigler, so many times in other threads, I figured it was fair game to just give one's one impression of what people are thinking.

So this ISN'T what you've been pounding us on for a week now?

If not, my apologies.  I for one am honorable enough to apologize if I mischaracterized someone.  Now I would expect the same from you, in the other threads.

But you have expressed a desire also not to make these things personal, so no need really.

Care to take a stab at my thoughts here, or are they just too obvious (as I expect)?  I am after all just discussing golf course architecture.

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 03, 2003, 09:35:58 AM
Tom Huckaby:

I don't believe I have misrepresented your views or that of David's on the other threads. Clearly, David referred to "skilled" golfers. That's what got the whole discussion started.

You actually took a different of view. You said something like "Rustic Canyon doesn't provide enough interest for ALL golfers on too many holes".

Tom, surely you recall that I invited you to start a thread to explore your point of view hole by hole. But, you decided not to. That's fine. But, why suggest I've misrepresented your point of when I actually encouraged you to spell it out as clearly as possible?
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 09:46:27 AM
Tim:

This has gone on far enough.  You mispresented my view, and that of David's, countless times in those threads.  I have neither the energy nor the desire to go back and repeat them for you yet again.  Go back and read how we called you on such in those, if you care to.

I'm just following what seems to be your idea of taking this to the general, beyond any specific golf course.  This goes far beyond Rustic Canyon - that's a damn fine golf course and enough has been said on it already.  I'm talking tee shots in general here, as you are on your "Case" thread.  Are you speaking generally, or just about that one golf course?

If you are offended, just say the word and I'll delete this thread.  I thought I was discussing golf course architecture.  It's too bad you are taking it so personally.

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: W.H. Cosgrove on June 03, 2003, 09:47:39 AM
Tee shots do matter, otherwise wouldn't we all be playing par threes?

It is my observation that many newer golf courses have dumbed down the tee shot for reasons of playability and pace of play.  All too often it is a throw away shot.  Whether this is caused by the freeway school of design of the fifties, changes in irrigation, mowing, multiple technologies or simply the search for the almighty dollar, I couldn't say.  

What is clear is that a course like Rustic Canyon (which I have not played) can apparently be considered great from sixty yards in.  It would be much less expensive to build a 1080 yard course.

A tee shot that gets my heart really going is one requiring a shot down one side or another that results in a more advantageous shot to the green.  To make it truly great the tee shot must change depending on pin position.  Add in a shot that could be made with a 2-3 iron or a driver with added risk and I am reveling in ecstacy.  

How often do you see a shot like that on a Florida resort course constructed with mounds on the right and water on the left?  Or a muni anywhere with a bunker off in the rough somewhere so far from the line of play the Super doesn't even maintain it?

Tee shots are fun, they should involve some risk and they must make a player use his brain.  That is when you have us by the ..........
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 09:50:38 AM
Great stuff, Cos.  This is the direction I was going with this as well.  Width is one thing, if it leads to the availability of strategic choices... but if width is there just to allow playability and keep things moving, then that's no fun for anyone.

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 10:05:54 AM
Shivas, great stuff, and obviously I agree.  Tim can rebut you if he cares to, but my "headline" for the thread stands.  Tim did say in other threads exactly what I say in my first post, specifically that

 "the skilled golfer is such a low percentage of all players that the effects on them shouldn't be accounted for, and for the rest of us, just making contact is the challenge, so giving us any more doesn't matter either.  He also allows no difference between challenge and interest off the tee."

Perhaps I am mistaken in attributing that to him, and no, I haven't gone back and read through every thread, but I sure do think this was his viewpoint - not specifically in his "case" thread, but stated in others.

If I am mistaken, then I will at the very least delete the first paragraph of my first post in this thread.

In any case, to me this remains a discussion about all golfers, at any course, not just skilled golfers, and for damn sure not just at one great course in Moorpark, CA.

But if you want to use this as a vehicle to argue against his premise re the skilled, that's fine with me. I believe you make some damn fine points.

TH




Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: CHrisB on June 03, 2003, 11:30:02 AM
I think Shivas' argument and analogy are almost irrefutable.  The only counter-argument I can think of would be to contend that excellence at golf is not nearly as essential as excellence in education.  But even there, all sorts of red flags go up.

Do we really want to punish the player who has devoted his time and resources into developing his skills to a high level?

I can see it now: "Boy, I hope I don't ever get so good that this course becomes boring!"

On the great courses, no one can say that.

I am all for courses playable by all, but I'd just rather see courses that become more interesting (or at least retain interest) as your skill level improves, courses that challenge the player to come up with a new shot, a new idea, a new approach.  Not courses where you are never challenged to change your game.  How boring would it be to play the same game all one's life!

(Disclaimer: I'm talking in general terms here, not referring to any particular course.)
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: FORTSONATOR on June 03, 2003, 11:31:26 AM
Tom & Shivas,

My take on this is such.....

Tee shots DO matter.  They matter A LOT.

Where I think I differ from some is that I don't believe that hazards, trees, OB, rough are absolute musts to challenge any golfer.  I do think that the above mentioned challenges can be effective or very strategic when used properly.  I guess what I am trying to say is that if you think that a course HAS to have these challenges off the tee to be interesting or challenging to a "skilled" golfer than I have to disagree.  

If you were to look at it on a numbers basis then you are saying that a drive is MORE important than any other shot.  I think the green complex should pose the toughest challenge to the golfer.  There are about 14 tee shots a round and anywhere from about 25 to 40 putts taken in a round (to be general).  Wouldn't you think that the green should be a heavier focus for the "skilled" golfer in this case?  If you add in approach shots to greens, then you are looking at over 75% of all shots that have to take the green complex into consideration.  The way it looks to me, golf is played mostly with a green complex being apart of the picture when a stroke is made.

Please don't take this as me saying that I don't think that drives matter, THEY DO.  But to say that if a course isn't challenging off the tee from a penal standpoint (i.e. hazards, OB, rough, etc.) then it can't be a great course is something I disagree with wholeheartedly.  In my opinion width and strategic angles are just as challenging as any hazard or rough.  

I would say that courses with great and challenging green complexes, that have little or no challenge off the tee, are much better golf courses than ones that challenge you heavily off the tee and have bland green complexes that put you to sleep after you drive the golf ball.

Jeff F.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Dan Kelly on June 03, 2003, 11:43:44 AM

Quote
I would say that courses with great and challenging green complexes, that have little or no challenge off the tee, are much better golf courses than ones that challenge you heavily off the tee and have bland green complexes that put you to sleep after you drive the golf ball.

I can't wait to see who'll find a way to disagree with this!

Imagine that: The Fortsonator -- bringing us back together.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 03, 2003, 11:44:04 AM
Shivas:

Let me try again. This multi thread discussion began with someone making the following assessments of a golf course:

a) the course was Top Ten sixty yards and in
b) the course didn't provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee

This gentleman then went on to say that based on "b", he would not consider the course to be Top 100.

Interesting, I thought. Several things went through my mind:

a) how much ground does sixty yards and in cover?
b) how much weight should we give to whether the course provides "enough" challenge to "skilled" golfers?
c) could I or anyone else think of a golf course that was Top Ten sixty yards and in, but not Top 100 overall?

Let me deal with "c" first. It remains striking to me, though not entirely surprising that nobody has come forward with an example. I say not entirely surprising, because I can't think of such a course. But, it isn't just striking, it is illuminating. If the best thing people can do is make reference to executive or par 3 courses, perhaps there's a point here.

That brings us to "a" - if I may proceed out of order.

Sixty yards and in covers a lot of ground. How much? It includes any shot that lands in, comes to rest in or is played from this area. In other words, it involves about 80 percent of all golf shots played.

Now, we return to "b". The fact remains that tee shots by "skilled" golfers are about 1 percent of all shots played.

Now, since you raised the subject of 4th grade, I'll take the risk of suggesting that most 4th grade students understand that 80 percent is much bigger than 1 percent.

But, we may not.

Anyway, until I hear steady reports about golfers at Rustic Canyon shooting rounds in the mid sixties, I'm not inclined to worry whether the project team didn't put enough time into thinking about how the course would play for an elite class of golfers.

To the contrary, I'll remain convinced that the project team understood the big picture better than many folks here.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 03, 2003, 11:48:04 AM
Jeff F.

I see you made reference to green complexes effecting over 75 percent of all shots played. I think the number is right around 80 percent. Close enough in my book.

Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 11:59:39 AM
The problem here remains, Mr. Weiman, that you took a statement that a fine gentleman made in an attempt at nice, constructive criticism of a golf course we all hold dear, but friends of ours hold VERY dear - trying to state the very great positives about the course while also noting that negatives do exist - and made him back it up as if this were a court of law.

His statement was an exaggeration, made for effect, which even he would be the first to admit.

Thus this whole thing remains insulting, demeaning, and frankly ought to be beneath you.  I am struggling for what axe you have to grind here - is making this point THAT important?

Jeff Fortson nailed the issue anyway.  His words should really end this entire discussion.  Notice how he did it while keeping things general, offending no one?  And no offense to Jeff - I enjoyed meeting him at the King's Putter and he sure seems like a great guy to me - but peacemaking was not his forte here previously.  To me this was a very cool post, very informative with no rancor whatsoever.

I suggest you read his post several times.

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 03, 2003, 12:15:13 PM
Are you guys still discussing this?!?!  ;)

I've yet to see anyone do a hole-by-hole discussion of the driving scenarios at Rustic Canyon, and how they might play differently for the average versus the skilled golfer.

I'm tempted to do so, but I have to work this week.  

Any other volunteers?  ;D
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 12:21:13 PM
Sure Mike, send the rest of us to the gallows...

No thanks - if you want to do that, go right ahead.  I'm sure those who love Rustic Canyon have your email address just as they certainly have mine.   ;)

The point here isn't Rustic Canyon, anyway.  Some holes the drives matter, some holes they don't, and taking the course as a whole this doesn't matter anyway because the greens are so great that even if there are deficiencies off the tee they are more than made up for at the greens, so Jeff Fortson's test holds true.  That's it, end of story, we can move on.  I see little worth in dissecting it hole by hole.  The course stands proud and doesn't need this.

Keeping it general, well... as I say Jeff nailed it, and I'd have to guess Tim will agree with what he says... I sure as hell agree with what he says... Maybe that will finally put an end to all this bullshit.

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Dan Kelly on June 03, 2003, 12:22:50 PM
Quote
Are you guys still discussing this?!?!  ;)

If we could get Rees Jones involved in this somehow, and maybe Merion's bunkers, this would have a chance of (if you'll pardon the term) surviving the Cigar Aficionado thread!

No, wait! Here's your trifecta: Rees, Merion's bunkers, and whether Colt had a blue pencil or a red pencil!
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Mike_Cirba on June 03, 2003, 12:43:11 PM
Did someone mention the Merion bunkers?   :o

Is Rees Jones going to "restore" them?   ;) ;D
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Dan Kelly on June 03, 2003, 12:55:41 PM

Quote
Hello, all. I was just wondering if anybody out there has played a course called the Bridge, and what your thoughts are?  I'll logout and listen to your answer.... ;)

I haven't played it, but I've heard there isn't enough challenge off the tee.

Or maybe it was: not enough interest at the tee.

Of course, the containment mounds at the 9th green are good enough to make up for almost anything.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 12:57:37 PM
I gotta say this is classic.  Well jousted, gentlemen.

 ;D ;D ;D

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 03, 2003, 12:57:44 PM
Tom Huckaby:

You remain way too hung up on personal stuff. Mike Cirba is right. Why not simply provide a detailed analysis of the tee shots at Rustic Canyon from the perspective of different classes of players? Wouldn't that be better?

If you find it insulting or demeaning to be asked to explain your view that too many holes at Rustic Canyon lack interest for all golfers off the tee, then I don't know why you bother to participate in a golf architecture discussion group.

Nobody is questioning whether you or David are fine gentleman. Hell, I've even been called a "bigot" in the course of this discussion, but so what? That's all a side show. We're here to discuss golf architecture, aren't we?

Shivas:

Sorry for the none answer. I'll be more direct. I don't think your analogy applies. When a 4th grade teacher teaches math and reading, it is reasonable to assume that most students will find both subjects to be important. How easy would it be for most citizens to function in society if they couldn't at least read or do math at the 4th grade proficiency level. In other words, what would it be like if 99 percent of the people couldn't read or do math at the 4th grade level?

You may think that would be an acceptable state affairs, but not me.

But, the design of a golf course is something different. If an architect fails to provide enough challenge to skilled golfers off the tee, so what? The overwhelming majority would still have great fun.

Dave, I don't like quoting people in the business, but I remember one day Tom Doak expressing to me his view about people who complained that Pacific Dunes didn't have enough length to conduct a professional tournament. Tom wisely dismissed this view pointing out that if anyone wants to hold a professional tournament in Bandon, they can do it right next door on the Bandon Dunes course.

My sense is that the Rustic Canyon project team also had their priorities right and understood that providing "enough" challenge or interest to "skilled" golfers just isn't that important. The critics just need to catch up, that's all.

Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Mike Benham on June 03, 2003, 12:59:38 PM

Quote
Hello, all. I was just wondering if anybody out there has played a course called the Bridge, and what your thoughts are?  I'll logout and listen to your answer.... ;)

Please clarify ...

the Bridge over troubled waters ...
the Bridge over the river Kwai (everyone whistle now) ...
the Bridge at Remegen ...
a Bridge too far ... (what a cast ...)
the Bridges Concert (...Neil Young connection ...)
Lloyd Bridges ...
Jeff Bridges ...
Nash Bridges ...
The Bridges at Gale Ranch ...
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 03, 2003, 01:00:04 PM
Tim:

Asked and answered (we're going on I believe 55 times now) as to why I don't want to do that, and as the mood has definitely lightened here, then so shall I.

See Tim, there are these things called "jokes".  They're meant to make people laugh.  Ever heard of them?  Mike Cirba most definitely has.   ;)

TH

Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: CHrisB on June 03, 2003, 02:50:33 PM
So Tim,
Have you had time to think about the answer to my previous question:

"In your opinion, if a course was top 10 material from 60 yards and in, what deficiencies would it have to have to take it out of the overall top 100?  Or is it a lock, so that all a course really needs is to be world-class from 60 and in?"

Not trying to hound you or anything, but you said you'd think about it.  I have some thoughts myself and I'd be interested in hearing yours (and others').

You said off the top of your head that it would probably take multiple deficiencies to take a course out of the top 100; what would those deficiencies be?
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 03, 2003, 03:57:10 PM
Shivas:

I appreciate your response. Isn't it funny how frequently people say they are through with this and then come back!

Personally, I think it is an excellent topic, so I'm not going away. Instead, I'll try again......and again.

To state the obvious, a golf architect does need to think about every kind of shot that will be played and what they will be like for all classes of players. Our debate here has been about how much weight should be given to one type of shot by one class of golfer - do we at least agree on that point?

Now assuming that we do, I'm still hard pressed to follow your analogy about either teaching 4th grade or buying a car. Why not just talk about golf shots?

Then, assuming we could possibly get to that point, I take the bold position that all shots, including tee shots, approach shots, second shots on par five, recovery shots and putts are all equal. Each may be played well or not. There is a reward for playing each well and often a penalty for failing to do so.

So, I'm hard pressed to understand why we shouldn't simply try to figure out how many there are of that one type of shot - tee shots by skilled golfers - and give them value on a weighted average basis.

If tee shots by skilled golfers are no more than one percent of the game, why would any rating system give them any more weight than that?

ChrisB:

No need to think you are hounding me. For the record I would say that if a golf architecture project team did create a course that was Top Ten sixty yards and in, it probably would be a lock for Top 100.

Note that I believe sixty yards and in covers about 80 percent of all golf shots (and that Jeff F also put the figure at more than 75 percent).

So, to try and disprove my theory you have to find a lot wrong with the other 20 ish percent. Now, if you want to do that, restricting any criticsm to skilled golfers won't work - as we have been through already many times. You would have to deal with the shots that don't fit into the sixty yards and in category. In other words, you would have to address tee shots and second shots on par fives for all golfers.

It's worth noting that Tom Huckaby has said several times that what I'm missing about tee shots at Rustic Canyon is that they fail to interest ALL golfers on too many holes. Tom's comment is, I believe, an admission that my original position probably is correct. Skilled golfers just aren't that much of the universe. You have to address how the course plays - specifically how tee shots play - for all golfers.

It is really a shame that Tom thinks adressing this subject is too emotional or that friendships would be lost. I'm of the opposite opinion. My hunch is that it might be quite interesting as this site includes several regulars that are very familiar with the course - far more so than Tom.

Anyway, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Thanks again for treating it as a golf architecture discussion.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Chris Kane on June 03, 2003, 04:12:58 PM
Why are 50% of threads on this fine website disintegrating into back-and-forth personal bickering?  It's about time everyone grew up.

Tommy was right.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Patrick_Mucci on June 03, 2003, 06:38:27 PM
Chris Kane,

Reformed hookers are the worst !  You can't listen to them.

I'll take a reformed slicer most any day.

Tim & Tom & Shivas,

60 yards times (X) 18 equals (=) 1,080.

That sure leaves a heck of a lot of the golf course unaccounted for.

It would seem difficult to rate a golf course based on only
one fifth to one sixth of its physical property's.

If we're going to rate golf courses on micro areas,
I nominate Hollywood as the best, and certainly a top 100 based on its putting surfaces alone.

I'll even expand that to include green surrounds, including near bunkering.

I'll even expand that to 60 yards in.

Heck, if I add in the tee ball, the challenge of the drive,
the course skyrockets according to some analytical views previously expressed on this and related threads.

Based on 60 yards in, and/or putting surfaces, Hollywood is clealy top 50, maybe top 20, maybe even higher.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: CHrisB on June 03, 2003, 07:47:39 PM
Tim,
Thanks for the answer.  I feel there are probably a few ways that a course can be top 10 from 60 yards and in but not top 100 overall, but are probably unlikely in practice because any architect team good enough to build world class greens and surrounds would probably know to avoid the pitfalls:

1. Tee shots that are too difficult for most golfers--forced carries, narrow fairways or tree canopies, excessive hazard use, etc. that take the focus away from positioning one's ball with the approach in mind to just trying to survive the tee shot.  Great greens are fun, but if you have to get up and down for bogey or worse all day, a little luster is taken off the course as a whole.

2. Tee shots that are too repetitive or overly favor one type of shot; lack of variety--the greens and surrounds can be world class, but if the player is asked to play the same tee shot over and over, or if the hole distances are too similar, then that may be enough of a negative to take it out of top 100 consideration.

3. A course built on a property that is so restrictive that it forces a severely "unbalanced" routing, something like a par 67, or 6 or 7 par 3's, or something like that--even world class greens (or holes for that matter) probably wouldn't win enough people over to overcome their bias against such routings.

4. Tee shots that lack interest or challenge--if they truly lack interest or challenge for everyone, and the tee shot is just a formality to get to the approach, then I can see where it could fall out of the top 100.  If it truly lacks interest or challenge for just the most skilled players, and that was its only drawback, then it probably would have to stay in.

With that in mind, then, my hunch is that David's statement probably isn't true to the letter, but then again I don't think he meant his comments to be taken to the letter.

I think he meant to say that there isn't enough tee shot interest and challenge at RC, for more than just a small subset of players, to keep it in the top 100.  I think this may be possible, but until I see the course for myself I'll just have to file it away.  I don't agree with the reasoning that just because there are no other courses that are top 10 from 60 and in but outside the top 100, that it's not a possibility.

I'll stay open-minded on this one.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 04, 2003, 06:17:35 AM

Quote
It's worth noting that Tom Huckaby has said several times that what I'm missing about tee shots at Rustic Canyon is that they fail to interest ALL golfers on too many holes. Tom's comment is, I believe, an admission that my original position probably is correct. Skilled golfers just aren't that much of the universe. You have to address how the course plays - specifically how tee shots play - for all golfers.

It is really a shame that Tom thinks adressing this subject is too emotional or that friendships would be lost. I'm of the opposite opinion. My hunch is that it might be quite interesting as this site includes several regulars that are very familiar with the course - far more so than Tom.

No Tim, you just NEVER misrepresent what I think, do you?

OK, since you seem to be so humorless, add an OCEAN of sarcasm there.  You do know what sarcasm is, correct?

I have told you publicly - and privately - many times now why I don't want to address this regarding Rustic Canyon.  In the past, criticisms of this course - which is held very dear to people I consider friends of mine - led to some very hard feelings, on their behalf and mine.  I just don't want to go down that road again - no good can come of it whatsoever.  I would MUCH rather focus on the positive.  I can't make that any plainer.  I've asked you very politely to let this drop, mostly privately.  Now I will say it publicly.  LET IT DROP, PLEASE?

To clarify my position, which I feel I need to do now that you've so butchered it:

1. Tee shots for all golfers do need to be taken into account.  This INCLUDES the skilled golfer, Tim.  So no, I still think you're incorrect saying that challenge/interest for the skilled golfer doesn't matter - which is what you said and have said all along, as much as you try to re-mold your argument now to track one innocuous comment I made about one specific golf course.  I'll just go with Shivas' arguments as to why these shots matter - you can argue that with him if you wish.  Just assume I agree with him.

2. On SOME HOLES at Rustic Canyon - not all - just a few, mind you - the tee shots don't hold as much interest as they might the way the course generally plays - yes, for all golfers, skilled and less skilled.  But this tiny perceived "weakness" is so overwhelmed by all the positives there, that it is irrelevant.  IT'S NOT WORTH DISCUSSING!!!!!  Rustic Canyon is a damn fine golf course and to me, that's enough said.

I'd really prefer an end to this.  I'm asking quite nicely, quite politely I believe.  I continue to respect your opinions very much, although your "style" I could do without.  Nevertheless, I'll ask this one more time:

Let it drop.

TH

Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: A_Clay_Man on June 04, 2003, 07:20:08 AM
My thoughts channel back to when we used to play to a rock or a tree. There were no boundaries, there was no one to tell you exactly where to go, let alone that we could get there with a stone and staff/rifle.
I have heard little in the way of what defines interest and what defines challenge and I think we could all agree that that is something subjective. Let's analyse a famous idea by a famous solicitor. Shivas' notion of how the 15th at pebble could use some pot bunkers to provide the interest and challenge I think some of you are talking about.

If there was a series of bunkers that took the driver out of your hands because of the distance to these bunkers. Would that provide challenge? interest?

Challenge, if you chose to ignore the warnings and tried to thread it thru the narrow maze with the big stick?

 Interest, because you have to decide to cut a low five iron or draw a little four (or whatever you find interesting)

I'd bet, if there were another ditch at say 235yds off the tee and you had to hit short or carry it 270, some of these same proponents of C&I would scream unfair or how stupid the hole is that one has to lay-up on. (thinking of the  hole at Spring green or the 18th at Links of glen Ellen).

I still yield to Bobby and Allister, and how the concept of intimidating the golfer on the tee by NOT showing them exactly where to TRY to hit it.

Chris Kane- I am in agreement and feel that any response to any post that is of a personal nature or picking of nits, should be done on IM feature of this site.

 
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 04, 2003, 07:27:48 AM
To Chris Kane and to AClayman:

For the record, I tried to keep my dispute with Tim on email after it became too personal. When he posted continued queries to me here, it was difficult not to respond.  But I do apologize for my part of this, it is childish and not worthy of the site.

As I say now, if Tim will let this drop - or simply keep it on email, as I tried to do with him - that will be the last on this you hear from me.

Beyond that, good stuff re interest/challenge... it will be in the eye of the beholder without a doubt.  I believe the lack of it would be fairly universally agreed on, but as to what exactly makes it up, it will be different based on different takes.

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 04, 2003, 07:48:49 AM
ChrisB:

Thanks for your comments. You are on the right track. I do think one would have to identify multiple deficiencies for a golf course that was truly Top Ten within sixty yards to be outside the Top 100. I can't think of one, but you're right. There is always a first time.

Pat Mucci:

I agree with your math. 18 times 60 does equal 1080 and this might be only one sixth of the physical property. Leaving aside the question of what the total square yardage may be, I think it is misleading to suggest that 60 yards and in is only one sixth of a golf course. About 80 percent of all shots played land in, come to rest in or are played in this area. Those numbers strike me as having far more significance than just one sixth of the golf course.

As for Hollywood, I've never seen it but understand it is well worth checking out. Hopefully I'll get there someday.

Tom Huckaby:

You are always free to drop out of this discussion if you find it unpleasant. From my point of view, the relative weight we should give to different type of shots for different classes of golfers is central to what discussing golf architecture is all about. Moreover, using courses as an example to discuss these issues is common practice.

I've heard three different points of view regarding tee shots at Rustic Canyon:

a) they don't interest or challenge skilled golfers enough
b) they don't interest all golfers on too many holes
c) they become more interesting the more times you play the course and are most likely to be appreciated by people who play the course regularly

Each point of view is worth exploring. It's not personal. It's fundamental to what golf architecture is all about. I won't ask you to comment any further and would appreciate it if you would stop this business of asking me to stop discussing a valid architectural issue.



Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 04, 2003, 07:54:53 AM
Tim:

Fair enough.  Perhaps subtle distinction here, though:  I never asked YOU to stop discussing this, I requested that you refrain from suggesting that I do so.  You have repeatedly challenged me to ennumerate this on a hole by hole basis regarding that specific course, I have repeatedly told you I don't want to, for what I consider very valid reasons.  THAT is what I ask you to stop.

Go ahead and discuss it yourself until the cows come home, I could care less.  Just please do leave me out of it.  It seems you have agreed to do so, which I do appreciate.  It just really shouldn't have taken this long...

And this too could have been accomplished by email.  My apologies once again to those whom this offends, but a public post requires a public response, in my book.

Can we agree to take any further personal issues between you and me to email?

TH
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: TEPaul on June 04, 2003, 09:38:41 AM
Can any of you conceive of a golf course that has about 14 fairways 100 yds wide with nothing at all on any of those fairways to penalize any golfer--skilled or unskilled?

And after conceiving of that can any of you conceive of how it's possible to create interest (and challenge) on all those tee shots nonetheless?

But everyone asks if they're all 100 yds wide with nothing of any risk/reward consequence on them then where would the interest and challenge of that tee shot be?

Obviously it would be on the need to put the tee shot in the correct position on those 100 yd wide fairways in relation to what came next ANYWAY! And the degree to which it's IMPORTANT ANYWAY to put the ball in the correct postion on those 100yd wide fairways that have zippo penalty (direct penalty mind you) on that incremental shot (the TEE SHOT) is the degree to which that tee shot would come to have INTEREST and CHALLENGE!

If anyone wants to deny that then they'd have to deny that what came next was not of importance to where that tee shot ended up.

But let's use David Wigler's example of Rustic Canyon being such a good course from 60 yds and in. What could he mean by that? I'd have to think he means that there must be real importance where the ball is on an arc within a radius of 60 yds of the green. If he doesn't mean that I really wish he'd explain what he does mean when he says RC is so good from 60 yds and in. Possibly he means it matters not where the ball is on an arc within a radius of 60 yds and in but I for one would find that extremely hard to believe of RC. Saying that would in effect be saying that all the problems and solutions from any position on an arc within a 60 yd radius of the green must be the same problems and solutions or at the very least co-equal problems and solutions.

Again, I find that hard to believe. So my assumption is that the problems and solutions on an arc within a 60 yd radius of the greens very much depends on the position of the ball on an arc within a 60 yd radius of the greens.

And if that's true then how could it not be challenging and interesting where your ball happens to be when you're outside the arc of that 60 yd radius around the green? And outside that arc within a 60 yd radius of the green would be somewhere of real strategic importance on that 100 yd wide fairway.

I think the entire point of this whole multi-thread discussion is there're players who demand not just INDIRECT challenge and interest on that incremental tee shot alone but DIRECT challenge and interest on that tee shot. In other words they want golfers to be immediately and directly penalized on that tee shot like being in a bunker or such!

But what if they aren't? What if they're simply in a really bad position on the 100 yd wide fairway for the risks and rewards of the next shot?

This is the entire difference between "direct tax" and "indirect tax" architecture when considering tee shots and their interest and challenge.

The problems are that most golfers expect to be shown something on every shot by the architect--sort of single shot or incremental shot problems and solutions either directly or indirectly. But what if the architect constructed a course where the tee shots (on 100 yd wide fairways with nothing on them) appeared to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever but in fact they had lots of meaning to something that came at some point later?

That would in effect be the architect requiring the golfer to figure out his strategy on something like the tee shot ALL BY HIMSELF.

That to me would be incredibly sophisticated architecture both on the tee shots and the rest of the course. And I'd have to say that although those tee shots might appear to be lacking in interest and challenge they certainly wouldn't be particularly since the golfer would need to figure out all by himself why they weren't lacking in interest and challenge!
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: David Wigler on June 04, 2003, 09:53:49 AM
Tom,

I am sticking with my ban on discussing RC.  It simply got silly, but I will answer what I meant by 60 yards in (And upon further thought, I probably should have said 30 yards in).  I was getting at the shaping of the greens, the fit of the bunker work to the greens, the quality of the bunker work, the interest in chipping and retention areas, the interior and exterior contouring of the greens, the green surrounds, etc.  I never intended the comment to have anything to do with the fit of the green to any particular shot.  
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: Tim_Weiman on June 04, 2003, 09:58:07 AM
David,

Just as a clarification, did you mean to include how the green complex treats approach shots?
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: David Wigler on June 04, 2003, 10:18:07 AM
No - except as it relates to other shots within this 30-yard radius.  For example (In this category), I am not concerned about a shot into the green from 80, 100, 200, or 300 yards.  I am concerned that if it misses long right, how creative or well thought out is the collection area and what kind of options will be available for the player when they land in that collection area.

I was evaluating the green complex in a vacuum as a creative and functional work of art.  Reminder - This is strictly my definition.  Others may look at it differently.

In my mind, I evaluate a golf course on:

1. Interest off the tee
2. Interest around the green
3. Fit of approach shot to the green complex (I think this is what you are getting at and it is a different category for me) ex. #3 at UofM has a brilliant green complex but Art Hills redesign screwed up the approach so badly that now the green is misaligned.  The green complex is not lessened but it no longer works for the hole.
4. Putting surfaces
5. GW's "Walk in the park"
6. Logic of routing

I have personal favorites in each of these categories and then accumulated results that make up my own individual top 10's, 100,s etc.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 04, 2003, 10:21:11 AM
David - tag, you're now in the ring.  Where the hell have you been?  I've betting getting worn out....  ;)

Hulk Huckaby
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: David Wigler on June 04, 2003, 10:36:25 AM
Huckster,

You know I love you like a brother but I meant what I said.  I will be playing RC again in a couple of weeks.  Until that point, I am going to accept DaveM's contention that I missed it my first time.  If I feel the same after my second time, I will probably shut up and then accidentally let some little innocuous comment slip and start this whole war over again (Needing to once more enlist your support).  I have been doing all of my other responses off line to not drag this any more personal.  If it had been anyone but TomP who asked the question, I probably would have ignored it as well.

PS - I did get a huge kick out of this thread and the upsetness about not having views properly characterized and I was in meetings all day yesterday and did not log onto GCA until after dark.
Title: Re: The Case that Tee Shots DO Matter
Post by: THuckaby2 on June 04, 2003, 10:45:07 AM
No hassles, Wily Wigler (your wrestling name until you come up with a better one), I was just giving you shit.  Your take is a very wise one.

So when are you gonna be there?  I saw June 15 somewhere else... I'm right near there June 20 and hadn't planned to go to RC due to obligations elsewhere and the need to get back to the family to avoid castration... but then again, family is one thing, but witnessing this historic event is another.  Send me an email, call, IM, whatever.  I'd love to be able to work this out.

TH