[Paul_Turner]

The phrase gets a lot of use on GCA, but what does it mean?

Who coined it?

[DMoriarty]

Great question.  

I think it might mean:  "The type of shot each golfer/reviewer most values."

So if the golfer/reviewer hits a long accurate driver, then a course which requires one long accurate drive after another would have high "shot values."

And, if the golfer/reviewer values breathtaking snapshots off of every tee, then a course with such will have excellent "shot values."

And, if the golfer/reviewer values shots of tequila and other drinks from an attractive and frequently visiting beverage cart girl, the a course which features such will have high "shot values."

[Brent Hutto]

For my game shots much be pretty darned cheap. I'd say maybe a nickel a piece, even cheaper some days.

[Joel_Stewart]

I was told a few years ago that "shot values" was first used by RTJ Sr. in discussing his architecture?  Its now a criteria used by panelists at Golf Digest.

[TEPaul]

This question has been asked a few times on here before and answers can probably be found in the archives.

Personally, I think the definition in C&W is the best I've heard;

"Shot values is an important but somewhat mysterious term. Golf architectes Ken Killian and Dick Nugent have described it well as "a reflection of what the hole demands of the golfer and the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots." "  

[TEPaul]

redanman:

If something is American of course you think it sucks! You know you really should think about how wonderful life would be for you if you only moved to France! You should feel right at home over there as the French seem to think that everything that isn't French sucks too!  

[Paul_Turner]

Bill

It does seem to be an indistinct and useless term.  


I can't remember it being a thread subject on GCA before, but Tom is probably correct.  Any consensus in those threads?

[ForkaB]

Paul

We did have a long discussion about a year ago and nothing was resolved (surprise, surprise!).

I think we all have our own private definition of "shot values."  Mine is something to the effect of a hole that invites/allows/entices golfers (of all abilities) to hit challenging and interesting golf shots.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I think some things about golf and golf architecture probably should remain a little mysterious as C&W said about the term "shot values". Otherwise too many golfers and too many architects will try to formalize, to create formulae and define the term, probably to the detriment of all. Regarding something like shot values I used to have a term about some courses I called their "high intensity level". In my area the three courses that always had a "high intensity level" are PVGC, Merion East and HVGC. The general feeling when playing courses with a high intensity level is that good shots are rewarded in some interesting ways but you have the feeling all day that something might go very wrong in a flash! Courses that have a high intensity level to them aren't just interesting and challenging to play they also are generally a real mental workout. You can feel sort of psychologically worn out after playing them, particularly in tournaments where results really do have consequences.

[rgkeller]

Good shots are rewarded, bad shots are penalized and the difference between the two is can be small and not intuitively obvious.

[TEPaul]

One thing I've come to believe in the last few years is shot values can be increased amazingly and made so much more enjoyable, interesting and challenging if a course and club learns how to slap some ideal maintenance practices on it's PARTICULAR TYPE OF ARCHITECTURE!

[A_Clay_Man]

I have no idea what "shot values" are, but, I do appreciate ...

The combination of natural elements and constructed features to challenge the awareness and execution of the golfer.

Lines of instinct, lines of charm, Winds, slope, firmness, elevation, gravity, humidity, natural tendancies of the individuals swing, to name just a few, that comprise what I'd define as interesting or interest generating architecture.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The phrase gets a lot of use on GCA, but what does it mean?

Who coined it?

Paul,

Great question.... insightful question....a question that begs for and deserves an answer.....what is your next question, please?

Seriously, I grapple with this, and in reading many, many books, I have really never found a definition to my liking. I may have even written that phrase TEPaul likes on behalf of my mentors Killian and Nugent, but that is too vague for my tastes.

I did attempt this subject and I find it difficult to define, as well.  As the "Matt Ward Scale" thread shows, any time you take a point of view - say that of a good player, you find there are many, many other points of view, which make agreement between the dems and repubicans in an election year, or the Isralies and Arabs any year, look far more likely than any agreement you would find on this subject.

Nonetheless, you can find my take - ATTENTION - SHAMELESS PLUG COMING - on my Cybergolf.com series. under "Brauer's Book." (My working title for the series was Crap I Think About Golf Design, but even on the net, the Editor thought that was, ah, too direct.....)  You'll find the basics under the "Ten Commandments" early in the series.

I will warn you that it a modern take on the subject.  I suspect Matt Ward would agree with most of it, if that influences your decision to read it.   However, in design, as in life itself, I'm lucky if I follow 8 of 10 at any given time.  Like Tom Doak says, these written words exist only on paper, but are rarely possible to acheive in the real world on a 100% basis, nor should they be.

It begs the question oft debated here of "Do you start with certain beliefs" or with a "clean slate" in design.  My mentors always felt that you start with beliefs, but don't get too rigid about them.  On one hand, if you break too many rules in one design, you will certainly have some unpopular holes. On the other hand, the great advancements in design come from designers not so bound by the rules - say Pete Dye, who changed the face of American architecture in the 60-70's.

However, it really isn't practical to go into every design ready and willing to discard everything that has worked well for you in the past.  

Basic Yin and Yang at work!

[TEPaul]

PaulT:

I'll give you what I'd consider to be a very good example of a high shot value.

You're standing on the back of the tee at the redan hole at NGLA into a 20 mph wind and the ground is firm and fast and the green is firm and fast and around 11 on the stimpmeter.

That to me is an excellent example of a "high shot value" shot! The reward for a very well thought out and precisely executed shot is there and for the experienced player to see and feel and the penalities for failing to mentally conceive the shot and execute it precisely can be pretty consequential and not in the slightest bit unobvious!

[Matt_Ward]

Paul T:

Shot values for me is where the archictecture created by the architect is ultimately tested. For example, it's very possible that a course may "look" great from an architectural perspective alone.

Shot values are where the "rubber meets the road." It means how well does the course blend power, finesse and accuracy without any one I just mentioned disproportionally outweighing the other two.

Shot values don't just mean diversity of clubs played -- but also the manner by which the golfer must shape shots when playing. It also means providing for avenues for different handicap levels whenever possible. A hole that favors only one way to play it can become quite unfair for others of lesser skill.

For me -- shot values are third element I look at after considering the quality of the land the course occupies and the routing that was ultimately selected.

[Pete Lavallee]

Have the "shot values" that were designed for guys who hit the ball as far as Cory Pavin does now become obsolete for Hank Kuehne? Can a PW and a 3 iron have the same "shot value"?

[A_Clay_Man]

Pete- Why not? If the wedge was hit from an area where the cant or slope is severe enough, and the green's slope and/or cant require both vertical and horizontal precision, the absolute value of the "test" isn't diminshed because of the loft of the implement used or length of distance from the hole.

I'm thinking about a specific type of hole where the fairway runs away from the line of instinct, is multi-optional off the tee, vertically, and has plenty of severe to mild slopes and cants within the different sections of the driving zones. (#13 at Riverview / Baxter Spann '99) A ball hit too far, may have a wedge in their hand, but has to deal with a severe downhill lie, to an uphill green. (or substitute any awareness provoking issue(s))

Why is that shot's value diminished, over the golfer who tops his tee shot and has a 5 wood in their hands, on an uphill lie, to the same green?

The term "shot value" seems to be something soooo loose, that the only way I would miss the experience, was if every hole on a golf course was flat like a bowling alley, or where natural unpredicatable elements were removed from the equation.

I suppose that would be similar to golfing in a half-pipe, which I will admit to having seen, and does exists.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

A term that identifies or quantifies the relativity of Risk/Reward.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

The word values seems to imply some sort of measurable quantity, but there's no Stimpmeter of shot values.  Browsing those recent architecture books which use the words shot values I have reached the conclusion that there are three shot values: easy, medium and hard.  The basic philosophy is that on a well-designed hole if you attempt a hard shot from the tee and succeed you will be rewarded with an easy shot to the green, or if you play an easy tee shot you will be left with a hard shot to the green.  Terribly simplistic, but it does not seem to be more scientific than that.

I think it's a term which might be used profitably by course restorers.  What were Mackenzie's shot values when he designed this hole?  What do we have to do to recreate the same challenges today?  I'd like to think that as a 15-handicapper in 2004 I am asked to decide from the same choice of shots as the 15-handicapper of 1924.  I can see those as shot values - not scientifically measurable, of course, and not exactly comparable - but similar decisions must be made on each shot.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()