News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Shot values
« on: November 26, 2005, 07:10:33 PM »

Could someone please define  "shot values" ?
It sounds impressive but I am not sure how to explain it.


Mike Boehm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2005, 07:20:20 PM »
Golf Digest utilizes shot values as their primary rating criterion.  GD defines shot values as "How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?"

I think that is a good, succinct descritption.

Mike

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2005, 07:30:49 PM »
OK .....now i understand  ???  ???

Ted Kramer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2005, 08:24:33 PM »
The need to "hit" certain shots during a round.
Will any shot work from tee to green?
Will you need to draw it?
Fade it?
Bump it?
Fly it?
Will you be forced to "work it".

In my mind, a course that makes you play specific shots in order to score well is a course that ranks high in shot values.

-Ted
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 08:25:32 PM by Ted Kramer »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2005, 10:47:47 PM »

Could someone please define  "shot values" ?
It sounds impressive but I am not sure how to explain it.




....and while we are at it, tell me "what is the meaning of life?" ;D

Seriously, I don't think anyone has ever come up with a deep meaning for that, or possibly could.  The GD definition is as good as any, but it isn't really that deep.  Or....maybe it is!
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 10:49:23 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shot values
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2005, 11:03:59 PM »
There is something seriously wrong with that defiintion. It sounds like a hodepoge of strategy and shot demands.

One is on the ground, and the other shouldn't be dictatorial. Limited only by the golfers awareness, imagination and ability.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 11:06:05 PM by Adam Clayman »

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2005, 12:25:11 AM »
I think of "shot values" as meaning that there are greater rewards available for players who have a wide variety of shots at their disposal.  A one dimensional player, like the mythical Nicklaus (who never existed) who could only hit high fades and nothing else would have greater difficulty scoring on such a course versus a Watson who "had all the shots".
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Bill Warnick

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2005, 01:18:20 PM »
I can't resist taking a stab at this.

Definition of Shot Value: The difficulty of the stroke required to achieve an acceptable outcome.

i.e. A par three with water around the green has a higher shot value than the same green with 1 inch high grass around it.

As I understand it, when you are faced with a stroke that is tough with few options, that is a stroke with a high shot value.
Forced carries would be an example of a high shot value.

I would guess, since I've never played it, that Pine Valley has high shot values.  My own opinion is that a course with consistantly high shot values would get old unless
it was an exceptional course. Always being faced with "do or die" and no possiblity of parole gets tiresome.


Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2005, 01:57:05 PM »
Jeff_Brauer writes:
....and while we are at it, tell me "what is the meaning of life?"

Lucky for us the boys from Python made a whole movie explaining the meaning of life.

They were never crazy enough to try and explain shot value.

Dan King
Quote
Is it the chicken and the egg time,
Are we just yolks?
Or perhaps we're just one of God's little jokes.
Well ša c'est the Meaning of Life.
Is life just a game where we make up the rules,
While we're searching for something to say,
Or are we just simply spiraling coils,
Of self-replicating DNA?
In this life, what is our fate?
Is there Heaven and Hell? Do we reincarnate?
Is mankind evolving or is it too late?
Well tonight here's the Meaning of Life.

Dan King

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2005, 02:01:27 PM »
Bill Warnick writes:
Definition of Shot Value: The difficulty of the stroke required to achieve an acceptable outcome.

So penal courses and holes would have much higher shot value than a strategic course or hole?

From your definition, I know I'd hate courses with high shot value.

Dan King
Quote
If the purpose of golf is purgatorial, nothing more needs to be said. But if the purpose is to entertain as well as instruct, then let us pause in the mad rush for hazards, more hazards and still more and fiercer hazards.
 --William Hemingway (commenting in 1909 on the trend toward penal golf course design)
« Last Edit: November 27, 2005, 02:06:19 PM by Dan King »

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #10 on: November 27, 2005, 02:16:53 PM »
If GD uses shot values as their primary rating criterion it must have some kind of numerical value.  It it 1-10 ? Do you add up all the shot values by each hole and then arrive at an overall rank..or ?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2005, 01:14:03 AM »
I think Ted has it closer than Bill, although I can see why Bill says that.  I once heard someone describe it as "making a player hit all the little shots that he really should" in order to make a better score.  Ideally, the variety of shots aspect is important in achieving the GD mantra of rewarding length, finesse and accuracy as equally as possible, and allowing all types of players to generally be competitive.

I have also heard it desrcibed (by pros) as that, AND as having the course set up for those shots, such as asking a player to hit a high spin shot on a typically downwind hole being bad shot values, while asking for high spin into the wind would be good shot values, because nature/physics helps make a good shot achievable, rather than next to impossible.

Other attempts at shot values include the USGA rating system, which starts with length giving a pre assigned value to a hole based on length.  The rating can be affected a maximum of 0.1 stroke per hole based on a combination of factors like target size, hazards, etc. The slope rating is similar, using about a dozen factors to alter the rating further for the 20 handicapper.

Hurdzan discussed this in his first book and made a good point.  If you size all greens according to the USGA chart (about 15% of approach shot length wide and 22% approach shot lenght long - i.e. for a 160 yard shot, 24 yards wide and 36 yards deep) then don't all approach shots have the same degree of difficulty?  Some should be smaller than "prescribed" and others should be larger for a variety of challenges.

Of course, variation in holes of similar length and par should be figured in - long par 4's don't need to have wider fw and bigger greens, even if the USGA formulas for rating suggest it.  If there were four long par 4's, I would think:

One would have a wider fw and smaller green,
One with a more difficult tee shot and easier green target.  One with more difficulty on both shots and easier putting.
One where par is defended by tricky putting.

Would have better shot values than one where they were all similar because of some formula.

Thompson did his shot values chart, which emphasized approach shot length variety, (i.e. use every club in the bag) and others have done "wind compasses" to assist in determining the variety of holes relative to wind direction (and usually par - with all par 3's and 5's ideally pointing to different directions, for example.) To me, length alone isn't enough and I trust prevailing winds about as much as I would a riverboat gambler.

If you took all of this together, I guess shot values would encompass variety of all kinds (wind direction, length, shot pattern, etc), overall shot challenge (shot type favored) vs. difficulty of shot (target size and penalty), while putting them "all in the right type of holes and right places in the round."
 
Let the debate begin!

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

TEPaul

Re:Shot values
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2005, 07:33:24 AM »
I like this definition in the Glossary of Design Terms in the back of Cornish and Whitten's book;

"Shot values is an important yet somewhat mysterious term. Golf architects Ken Killian and Dick Nugent have described it wall 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.""

I see no reason why the contributors to this website can't just accept and use most of the old definitions of terms that've been used in golf architecture for years rather than attempting on here to ascribe to some of them some massive metaphysical "large as life itself" new meaning or definition.  ;)

I think this kind of debate is best put into the perspective some of my favorite architects seem to put things into in the field when some golf analysts (like myself) come around and start chattering about the specific meaning of everything and anything. A guy like Bill Coore might actually say it but if he doesn't the look on his face does. It sort of says; "For God's sake, calm down will you? Golf architecture isn't simple but it doesn't necessarily have to take on all the specific over-thought meaning some of you guys assign to it."    ;)
« Last Edit: November 28, 2005, 07:44:10 AM by TEPaul »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #13 on: November 28, 2005, 08:02:27 AM »
TEPaul,

I can tell you that I can't accept that Killian and Nugent version, and its very possible that I wrote it for them, having done much of their wordsmithing back in those days! I have spent much time trying to write a better definition, whether here, on my Cybergolf series, or in my various "design philosphy" statments.

Why? Because there was (IMHO) too little thought process put into the shots in the typical K and N design - and perhaps, the typical 1980's designs - despite what you think is the seminal statement on the subject......Even accepting that distilled version as a good basic definition, the gca is left with the question of how do you find/develop/shape features for "the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots?"  

While accepting that there are many, many ways to do that, as well as many great exceptions to any standard rule, I feel the definition should go a bit further, just for my own use, and many good players and critics apparently believe similarly.  

It is also clear that like life itself (unless you are a creationist, rather than a Darwinist) shot values evolve over time.  The classic example is the blind shot, which was accepted in the 1800's, gradually becoming unacceptable as soon as it was practical to remove it, and now, seems to be making a limited comeback.  What kills me, is my definition of shot values, which I have taken over 20 years to formulate, may be obsolete by virtue of technology before I finish it!  There are parts talking about "ancient" concepts likes fades and draws which have largely gone by the wayside, as has the idea of a controlled layup shot!  (No such thing for the long bombers who find that a short shot from the rough beats a long one from the fw)

Such is life, which as you know from above, is another topic I am currently struggling with!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shot values
« Reply #14 on: November 28, 2005, 11:27:31 AM »
For moi, The approach shot to the 8th hole at Pebble Beach, represents the pinnacle of what I would consider to be any term resembling a shot's value, based on something other than outcome.

Under some of the definitions above, SV's are impossible to quantify unless repeated visits to a course are made.


Tom Huckaby

Re:Shot values
« Reply #15 on: November 28, 2005, 11:33:19 AM »
As long as we're using Golf Digest's rating system in this, let's get it correct.  First, the correct veribiage in the short definition in the rating form is:

How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?

Second, it's not "the primary" criterion used.  It is one of 8 equally weighted criteria, with two others (walkability and tradition) added as "bonus points."  The system has been torn to pieces here already, so if one wishes to do so again, well at least start correctly.

 ;D

As for the definition, hell GD's works as good as any, and is a decent criterion for evaluating a golf course.  But one certainly can define this however else one wants - there are no rules here.

TH

Mike Boehm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #16 on: November 28, 2005, 10:01:25 PM »
Tom -

I think it is fair to call shot values the "primary" criterion utilized by golf digest as it is the only category weighted double in the final ranking of courses.

Mike

A_Clay_Man

Re:Shot values
« Reply #17 on: November 28, 2005, 10:18:06 PM »
Quote
How well do the holes present a variety of risks and rewards, and test accuracy, length and finesse without overemphasizing any one skill over the other two?

Thanks Huck, That clears it all up.  ::)

However, there is one more thing you can clear up...

Quote
the correct veribiage in the short definition


There's a longer definition?

Tom Huckaby

Re:Shot values
« Reply #18 on: November 29, 2005, 10:07:36 AM »
MJB:

Good correction, and I stand corrected.  Or sit as the case may be right now. You likely don't know the hellacious bashing GD and it's rating system and panelists take in here, so forgive me for trying to err on the side of protection.  "Primary" still does seem a bit strong to me, and well... is likely to be taken to mean "only" by those who are against GD's ratings in principle.

Adam - yes, in our handbook there is a full page explaining the term.  What I quoted was the simple defition that appears on the internet form.

TH


Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #19 on: November 29, 2005, 10:17:19 AM »
Tom -

I think it is fair to call shot values the "primary" criterion utilized by golf digest as it is the only category weighted double in the final ranking of courses.

Mike

Mike-

I'll ask again. What is the numerical scale of shot values? If it is something you can double doesn't it  have to be a measurable value?

Tom Huckaby

Re:Shot values
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2005, 10:21:10 AM »
Mike - each criterion gets a 1 to 10.  In the final adding up, shot values gets counted twice.  Walking and tradition are bonus points added after that.

But that's how it all is in the most recent ranking... apparently it is going to change.  I don't know exactly how.

TH

TEPaul

Re:Shot values
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2005, 10:25:45 AM »
David Moriarty said:

"Shot Values.
Every shot has a value of one.  For match play, the lowest aggregate value for the hole wins.  For stroke play, the lowest aggregate value for the round wins.  
The rest of this business adds very little or nothing to understanding golf course architecture."

Congratulations, you just described the difference between the formats of match play and stroke play in golf itself. Obviously the design term "shot value" and its golf architectural meaning went right over your head.  
« Last Edit: November 29, 2005, 10:52:07 AM by TEPaul »

ChipOat

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Shot values
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2005, 02:06:47 PM »
There was a pretty good thread on this a couple of years ago.  If I knew how to search the archives, I'd retrieve it.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back