[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

We have a different view of the term penal when applied to golf architecture.

I think I view the internal features of the hole and I think you view the external features, out of bounds, water, etc., etc..as the defining standards.

Steep, deep fairway and greenside bunkers, heavily protected greens, greens with dramatic internal contours and courses along the lines of Prestwick, Troon, Turnberry was what I had in mind.

Are any of the courses you posted residential courses ?
Are any of the courses you posted Hotel courses ?

Don't leave, you started this.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I'm not sure if you read my post carefully where I listed the new, public-access courses and "coded" each of them as to whether they are "resort" (i.e. hotel), municipal, privately held, or part of a community.  All examples are included.

Thank you for your efforts to define what you mean by "penal".  I certainly include your "internal" examples in my definition, but widen mine to include long, forced carries, OB and water impinging play, the incorporation of steep, hilly terrain, and thick wooded areas where the best one might expect is to "pitch out" if the ball is even findable.  

Actually, my definition is less about any one of those things, but how those things might tend to work together to limit strategic options.  If there is only "one" place I can safely hit the ball without significant penalty, the hole is hardly strategic, by definition.  If I have no choice but a do or die carry, with no room for bailout, I'm not sure there's any strategy involved.  If I'm faced with a fairway bunker shot that is impossible to do anything but explode out, I don't have any choices but to perform the only option the architect left me.  At some point of the combination of all of these factors, a threshold is reached, and the course starts to become more penal than strategic.  Since that is largely a subjective determination, I offered the use of "slope", which is a commonly understood definition of course difficulty for the average player to make my point.

Now, can you answer the other questions on my last post?

Even if we have slightly different versions of the term "penal", I still don't agree with you that "for profit" courses built in the past 10 years have been any less challenging (or penal) than the newest private courses, or even the historic, classic private courses.

Somewhat unbelievably, and even counter-intuitively, just the opposite has been largely true.

[Jim_Bick]

As a course rater, I would caution against trying to use one rating/slope combination as a shorthand for difficulty, especially when it is the back tees. Many newer courses have a back set which are not at all reflective of where the overwhelming majority of rounds will be played. They have a rating, but the markers are never there.

More importantly, back tee slope ratings are almost always meaningless as a reflection of course difficulty for the 12 or lower handicap player. Inevitably, the hardest job on our rating team is doing the bogey rating from the back tees, because the hypothetical bogey player can't reach the fairway on half the holes, or clear the hazard, etc.

My point is that while specific courses may or may not be penal, I don't think one tee rating/slope combinations prove (or disprove) anything.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Bick,

I agree with the basic thrust of your post regarding the limitations of simply using slope rating to determine how penal a course might be.  My example in using slope was simply an attempt to throw some objective, measurable standards of difficulty into an admittedly subjective topic.

However, would you agree or disagree that many "for profit" coures built in recent years are devoid of penal elements, or do you know of courses that might even be called penal in design?

Do you agree that the majority of those for profit courses are being built in a way to get the golfer though in the quickest amount of time in an effort to grease the turnstiles?

I'm not sure what area of the country you live in, but I live near Philadelphia and I can tell you that many of the newest courses built in the past ten years in the mid-Atlantic have significantly "upped" the difficulty level in an effort to garner attention and reputation.

When a course starts hitting numbers in the mid 140s for slope rating from any tee, I think you'd have to concede that most golfers would have a time of it, wouldn't you?

Can you think of any courses with a back tee slope of 135 or greater that the average golfer just cruises through in the interest of the profit motive of the owner?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Desmond Muirhead objectively defines the varying types of designs as follows:

"Penal golf holes are those with hazards which severely punish badly hit shots. If you mishit your shot on a penal hole, you are very likely to land in a hazard and lose a stroke and sometimes several strokes...... Penal architecture requires straight and accurate golf or laying up by playing short of the green to avoid the hazard, thus making a par much more difficult for the average golfer".

"Strategic golf holes are based on reward not punishment. A strategic hole relies on much fewer, better placed hazards. Your drive or iron shot must be placed so that the following shot becomes progressively easier either with a better view of, better angle to, or better opening to the green; or to the second landing area in the case of a long par 5. If you are off-line, punishment is not necessarily severe and you do not normally have to lay up on strategic holes".

"Heroic carries are the ultimate form of strategic design. In heroic design, you are encouraged to gamble, go-for-broke, indulge in "death or glory." Rivers, lakes, creeks, ravines, bunkers, natural or man-made are used on the diagonal so that the golfer can bite off as much of the hazard as he feels able with commensurate rewards for daring and courage......... Heroic holes, which require mandatory carries, usually offer an alternate route to the golfer who feels unable to play the gamble. By taking this easier route, the golfer expects to lose a stroke".

Using these definitions, a course like the "Monster" at the  Concord Resort would fall largely into the "Heroic" style. Do you think that many of the courses you cited with high ratings and slopes would more likely fall into this category?
Do you agree with the definitions?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Kennedy,

I agree that the Concord Monster blends penal and heroic elements, but it's also a ball-buster.  I don't know how many hazards there I would say are placed on the "diagonal", but I sure recall a lot of lateral.

I also believe that Mr. Muirhead's definitions are valid for discussion purposes.  Using his definition, would you say that my inclusion of forced carries, impeding OB, lateral water hazards, thick, inpenetrable woods, etc., are all penal elements?

In any case, and back to the original topic, would you agree with Patrick's original contention that "for profit" courses are being built these days without penal elements?  What's being built in your area?

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Mike, leaving Patrick out of this for it was too time consuming to read all the banter to get all of this. I agree that many new daily fees are gearing to less penal design for pace of play and quality of experience reasons. Many are selling recreational opportunities in a very competitive market. I personally enjoy a mixture of hazards. I like a few holes which are very penal in design with the vast majority strategic with one or two heroic holes. I think this can work in a daily fee/resort if one is careful to spread them out and set up to avoid bottle necks.

[THuckaby2]

Jim Bick/Tom Egan:  great to have some fellow course raters aboard here and thanks for the clarifications.  All I can say is amen, brothers.  I'm very new to the brethren myself, but I am enjoying it and learning a little more each day.  I am proud to say I have read the USGA Manual cover to cover - twice!  My fellow NCGA veterans thought I was insane, but hey, it's not exactly "intuitive."

And TEP, fellow admitted idiot, that was brilliant re the perfect course.  Maintenance meld indeed.  If you build it, they will come... and right on JakaB re the amplification on this.

One more thing:  I truly think I have played the hole in question mentioned by Rich Goodale - Golfland on Blossom Hill Road?  In fact, my daughter's birthday party covered it two days ago.  Oh yes, that needs to be held up as the model for penal design.  Long live the VOLCANO!

 

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Based on your definition of penal, with a discription of the features creating penal design, woods, water, steep hilly terrain, ravines, etc. etc.. how do you reconcile the penal nature of Troon, Prestwick, or Turnberry ?  All absent those features.

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

Do you actually see Troon, Prestwick or Turnberry as penal?

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

When I asked you to define what you meant by "penal", you said;

"Steep, deep fairway and greenside bunkers, heavily protected greens, greens with dramatic internal contours and courses along the lines of Prestwick, Troon, Turnberry was what I had in mind."
 
I replied;

"Thank you for your efforts to define what you mean by "penal".  I certainly include your "internal" examples in my definition, but widen mine to include long, forced carries, OB and water impinging play, the incorporation of steep, hilly terrain, and thick wooded areas where the best one might expect is to "pitch out" if the ball is even findable."

The fact that Turnberry, Troon, etc. don't contain some or all of these particular features is hardly at issue.  (I agree with Tim Weiman in that I wouldn't call them particularly penal courses, either.)  

I continued;

"Actually, my definition is less about any one of those things, but how those things might tend to work together to limit strategic options.  If there is only "one" place I can safely hit the ball without significant penalty, the hole is hardly strategic, by definition.  If I have no choice but a do or die carry, with no room for bailout, I'm not sure there's any strategy involved.  If I'm faced with a fairway bunker shot that is impossible to do anything but explode out, I don't have any choices but to perform the only option the architect left me.  At some point of the combination of all of these factors, a threshold is reached, and the course starts to become more penal than strategic.  Since that is largely a subjective determination, I offered the use of "slope", which is a commonly understood definition of course difficulty for the average player to make my point."

Would you prefer that we use architect Desmond Muirhead's definition that Jim Kennedy provided above?  

Do you agree with Muirhead's definition?

You know Patrick, I was thinking about this on the ride into work today, and it occurred to me that you might be thinking of penal features as ONLY including deep, steep bunkers, such as are found at NGLA and Garden City.  Your inclusion of Turnberry, Troon, and other links courses with similar pot bunkers to Garden City makes me believe I might be correct about that.  

And yes, those deep pots are penal features (as are woods, water, OB, deep rough, etc.), and if there were enough of them on any hole to constrict shot-making choices with certain penalty for any deviation from the architect's dictated safe line of play, they would be penal holes.  If there were a considerable number of penal holes on a particular course, we might call it a penal course.    
 
Is this any clearer?

 

[SPDB]

Even from any of Sean's 5 or more sets of tees, which usually just make bad golfers take bigger and dumber chances and slow play even more when they stand there with their latest Callaway model waiting to attempt to drive the lagoon-infested 310 yard par four, or stand in the fairway 270 yards from the green on all the par fives (now playing at 450) waiting for the green to clear to attempt the carry over Lake Champlain, and then smashes it 120 yards sideways into the woods and drops another ball to attempt it again.  

Mike - You just can't ignore the fact that 5 tees is meant to accomodate all levels of play, and speed along players of varying ability. I don't argue that there probably has been a "try and top this" battle going on from the tips. But when there exists as much as a 2000 yard difference between forward and back tees, with as many as 3 tees in between, the result is a course that accomodates players, not penalizes.

By saying that the player nullifies with his unrealistic bravado, doesn't really address the architecture. If what you are saying is true (and I don't know that there is any real evidence to back it up), then it is the player that is penalizing him/herself, and not the architect.

I agree very much with Pat's view about internal characteristics of penal architecture (bunkering, green contour, etc). I was trying to direct this discussion back to Walter Travis the primary practitioner of the penal school

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean,

First of all, let me apologize for being so flippant and cynical in my response yesterday.  That being said, let me respond in more detail.

First of all, I don't believe that 5 sets of tees have anything to do with whether a course is penal in design or not.  

If a hole is penal, and you move up a set of tees, you are simply playing a shorter penal hole.  If a narrow hole with no options but to hit each shot string-straight with OB on one side and water on the other side is 420 yards from the blues, and you move up and play it from 390, it is still a penal hole.

You say that you "agree very much with Pat's view about internal characteristics of penal architecture (bunkering, green contour, etc)."  Fair enough.

But, are water hazards internal?  Are steep slopes internal?  Are thick woods and/or inpenetrable rough that encroaches on playing lanes internal?  Are environmental hazards internal?  Are forced carries over any of these internal?

Are those things you are defining as "external" (everything but pot bunkers and internal green contours) elements that come into play or not?  If a golf course is designed with 25 yard wide fairways in the landing zone, with any or all of these features closely bordering each side, would you consider this penal or no?

I wish I could post pictures directly, but please take a look at the hole on the following link, and tell me if you think it is more penal, or strategic, or heroic.

http://www.lighthousesound.com/05.html

I should mention a few things that aren't as evident from the picture.  First of all, the site is right on the bay and winds of 20+mph are the norm.  Second, over the green is dead, as is right.  From every tee, there is a forced carry.  The left side, except for a minute, bowled clipping of fairway is a rough covered steep downhill slope that will neither advance a ball if it lands in there, and you may  have trouble finding it.

Does this look like the kind of hole that is being built to "speed players through at a "for profit" golf course, as Mr. Mucci is claiming?  If you'd like, I could repeat this exercise with any number of "for profit" courses built in the past ten years.

THAT was the thrust of my original post, and the question I asked.  

In return, Patrick has not even been able to tell me the last public, "for-profit" course he has played, yet he feels confident in assaying and generalizing when it simply isn't the case.

Why you want to turn this thread into a discussion of Walter Travis is beyond me.  I love Walter Travis, too.  Why don't you start a thread on Travis's philosophy and contributions to penal design?  I'd be happy to contribute.  

  

[SPDB]

Mike,
That looks like a difficult hole. That being said, it is one hole, on one course. I know that you say you can "could repeat this exercise with any number of "for profit" courses built in the past ten years," but I strongly doubt the veracity of that claim. I think you are making some pretty broad statements based on the slope ratings from the tips of these courses - when even you yourself concede that "'slope' has become the latest "mine is bigger than yours." At the course you use as an example, Lighthouse Sound, the tips are a full 500 yards longer than the next shorter.


 

[Mike_Cirba]

Sean,

How about the hole directly preceeding it?

http://www.lighthousesound.com/fx/04.jpg

How about the hole directly following it?

http://www.lighthousesound.com/fx/06.jpg

Or, the one after that?

http://www.lighthousesound.com/fx/07.jpg


Which set of tee markers would make any of these holes less than penal?

Should I continue onto a different course?

By the way, I'll ask you the same question I asked Patrick.  Which new, for-profit courses have you played in the past couple of years that you are basing your arguments on?

I've provided my list.  Please share yours.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

Emerald Dunes

Tim Weiman,

Yes,

Especially when my playing partner hit it into everyone of the fairway bunkers at Troon, and had to play sideways or backwards in order to extricate his ball.

Pete Dye once told me he considered Prestwick Penal, it was some time ago, so maybe he's changed his mind.

[Mike_Cirba]

No cross-examination, your honor...

I rest my case.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You're resting your case after offering 40 courses you consider penal compared to hundreds or thousand that aren't penal.

If your summary and conclusion is that the trend is toward creating more penal courses,

I too rest my case  

[Mike_Cirba]

Thanks for suggesting percentages, Pat.  

Since the jury asked for more evidence, I was also curious, so I took a look.

Of the 145 "for profit" courses I have PLAYED built since 1990...

42 of them have slope ratings of 135 or higher, as previously listed.

49 of them have slope ratings between 130-134.  

So, roughly 63 percent of golf courses that were built since 1990 that I'VE PLAYED have a slope somewhere in the 130 and above range!    

Remember, Patrick...a slope of 113 is the "average difficulty" golf course according to the USGA...Garden City is sloped at 139.

My lord!  I had no idea it was this overwhelming.

Not only must you "play to assay", but if the "slope don't fit, you must aquit!"  

Don't even bother sequestering the jury.  I move for an immediate mistrial, your honor.    

By the way, I'm off to PGA West Stadium course this Saturday...another toned-down public affair.  

[JakaB]

Shiv,

According to pgatour.com course guide...of the 456 public courses in Illinois 223 have slopes of 114 or higher...makes 113 pretty average.

[JakaB]

This post has been deleted at the request of the Lawrence County Chamber of Commerce.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
The Concord has four or possibly five holes that require forced carries over water, either on the tee shot or the approach. There are two to three more that use water laterally. The playing corridors are not littered with bunkers, as a matter of fact there are very few fairway bunkers on the course. It is long and usually soft runway golf with heroics thrown in for good measure. There are a few, possibly only four, holes that offer alternate routes to the greens. The course may be best described as punishing.

Thick woods or OB only define a corridor. I don't think you can consider elements that are not located within the playing corridor as aligned with any particular school as they can be found on courses of any style. When Fownes or CB Mac or RTJ sr. sited their hazards they didn't put them in the woods or out of bounds.   

We will be seeing 3 courses in our area in the next couple of years. One each by Tom Fazio, Jack Nicklaus and Steve Smyers. They will be equity private, resort private, and equity private, respectively. I don't expect any of the three to favor penal architecture.

[Tom_Egan]

Shivas --

I'm not sure this will do anything other than muddy the waters further, but the definition which refers to a slope rating of 113 is Definition # 18, page 9, in the USGA Course Rating System Manual.  It says, (Quote) A golf course of "STANDARD" playing difficulty has a USGA Slope Rating of 113. (Unquote).                                                          

No mention of an "average", "mean", "median", "mode" or any other mathmatical/statistical term -- simply a "standard".  Now all we need is the USGA definition of a "standard".  I don't believe there is a universal definition, so the issuer of the edict is responsible for developing one to cover the subject.  

Good luck with Far Hills on this.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim Kennedy,

FIVE forced carries over water on one course and you don't consider it penal?  Sheesh..I'd hate to see what you call penal, much less play it.

Incidentally, I just looked up "penal" in the dictionary.  Synonyms are;

Punitive
Punishing
Severe
Strict

Now, what did you call Concord Monster again?  

As far as the hole corridors, who exactly creates those?  Isn't that usually the architect?  Even the architect who is given tighter corridors within a housing development generally has the freedom to lay out holes within as he sees fit.  So, if a hole corridor is 25 yards wide bordered by thick woods on one side and OB on the other, is that not penal architecture?

In the case of Oakmont, there were no trees at all on the site when Fownes built it, thus his somewhat single-minded obssession with bunkering every inch of the place.  I sense he would have unleashed wild dogs and hyenas if they had been at his disposal.  

As far as the architects building courses in your area, I would agree that it's unlikely that Tom Fazio would build anything too penal unless instructed to, Jack Nicklaus is now the "kinder, gentler" Jack, but quite a number of his early courses fit that description, and Steve Smyers will likely build the toughest of the bunch, but probably the most fun as well.  After all, just see the Wolf Run writeup on this site.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
"I agree that the Concord Monster blends penal and heroic elements, but it's also a ball-buster."
I agree with your above statement.

There are no problems with hazards for the majority of tee shots on this course. Driving areas are generous on many holes and fairway bunkers are few. There are several holes with forced carries. There are several holes that offer alternate tee shots. Length makes this course punishing.
In retrospect, I don't know how to classify this course, it has elements from all the schools.

I recently played a course in an over 55 development. It had some of the tightest holes I have seen, tree lined and OB'ed.  There were no fairway bunkers, no forced carries, no diagonal hazards and no fronting bunkers greenside. About nine or ten of the holes fit this description.
I wouldn't call this course penal. The retired guys I played it with encountered little trouble and all scored well. I did too, when I used 3 iron from the tees.
    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()