[Jeff_Brauer]

Following up on the Fairway bunker depth thread, I'll just put this out there - what is your definition of shot values?

They are important, everyone agrees, or golf design would be an excercise in landscape architecture.

If you are hesitant to answer, I will throw out that I have never read what is, to my mind, a satisfactory answer, by any professional architect or otherwise!  The written material on this subject is maddeningly vague, meaning it's either too big to grasp, or none of us really understands it and is afraid to say so!

I suspect the best answers will only address just a portion of the big picture, and provide glimpes that allow my own personal (but somewhat dim) lightbulb to go on!

[Richard_Goodale]

I'm away for 3 days of vacation, but I'm very much looking forward to reading the results of this thread on my return!

[A_Clay_Man]

I know my personal definition can be broken down this way.

The more I have to think about the more variables there are, in order to execute a "good shot", the higher level of satisfaction I have in determing that the shot values at a particular place are FUN.

While I have never been to TOC, I sometimes feel as though certain shots on even the bitchyest of dog tracks, recreate what is the "real" lure of golf.  Mind challenging

[THuckaby2]

I'm with Adam here - the more one has to think, the more "value" there is in the shot.  This "thinking" requirement can come from available strategic choices, difficulty of the shot at hand, or just something interesting to catch one's eye - but obviously the shots of most "value" have ALL of these components.  

That being said, EVERY shot on a golf course need not have all of this - such would make for overkill.

You architects have a tough job!

TH

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

I define it as a value relative to the amount of skill necessary to execute a shot in order  to move it from point A(player position) to point B (chosen landing area) therefore giving the player a definite scoring advantage over a shot played to a less demanding landing area( point C).  IMO the greater the risk of executing to point B rather than point C the higher the shot value.  And it carries thru from Tee to Green with execution of tee shot determining the shot value of approach and approach placement determining putt.
Just My opinion.
Mike

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,

I define it as a value relative to the amount of skill necessary to execute a shot in order  to move it from point A(player position) to point B (chosen landing area) therefore giving the player a definite scoring advantage over a shot played to a less demanding landing area( point C).  IMO the greater the risk of executing to point B rather than point C the higher the shot value.  And it carries thru from Tee to Green with execution of tee shot determining the shot value of approach and approach placement determining putt.
Just My opinion.
Mike

[Peter Galea]

Identifying the task, choosing the option and execution.

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

1). Total dexterity of all clubs in your bag -- starting with the driver and putter at the top of the list.

2). OPTIONS are presented. You can be cautious or aggressive -- with rewards and penalities proportionate to the degree by which you are able to execute correctly.

3). You must "work" the ball to get into the best positions to "score." Control of ball movement (right/left and left/right) and ball flight (high and low) is a must.

4). Good courses keep shot values from predictability -- you have varied holes to force the golfer to adjust because of yardage, elevation change, daily wind pattern and turf conditions. The golfer cannot get by simply by having skill at just one area of the game.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Here's the Golf Digest definition:

How well does the course pose risks and rewards and equally test length, accuracy and finesse?

Due to its importance, they double this score...

[RJ_Daley]

Yes sir Jeff, a good challenge for us to put on our thinking caps.  I would be interested if someone can document the earliest use of the phrase "shot values", and in what context. (evaluating courses for slopes and ratings or some early designer's or writer's lingo?)

I'm thinking about it in context of evaluating a course for degrees of playability on both the skill and enjoyment level.  Not that my changable ideas of a definition are any more valid than other folks...  

Perhaps something in the realm of a ratio measuring the relationship of all that a golf hole presents in the broadest sense of imagination considering how many ways to play the hole, a more limitted number of ways to play competitvely, and compared to the degrees of difficulty that each imagined particular shot presents to the skill of pulling it off.  On the imagination of how many ways to play the hole, that side of the ratio is nearly infinite.  It becomes a narrower set of choices in competion.  And, on the variable side of the equation the degrees of skill to play the imagined shot, that becomes a matter of set or defined percentages.  

Take Carnoustie 18th.  There are any number of ways to play the hole creatively.  Playing it well in competition is a narrower set of choices.  Then pulling off the selected choice it requires the application of skill in a calculated percent of chances for success.  So, to win by par or even bogey the hole required considered shots of high value on the demanding percent of success side for VandeVeld.  Yet, he proved in the commercial he could have tied with a putter!     I'm thinking that is indicative of high shot values.  

But, unless someone can define the term better, maybe we ought to search for a more meaningful term to define what we mean, if we even know that much... :-/

[Ed_Baker]

Taking a page from one of the great thinkers of GCA (or the world for that matter) "Brains" Goodale, who has professed in this forum many times that EVERY golf course is strategic and EVERY shot has merit, then it would hold that "shot value" is personal and distinct and therefore indefinable as it is completely subjective as to who is placing value on it and by what method.

Mike Youngs' opinion is very valid too me,as it relates to design. I don't think you can have tremendous shot value without tremendous design. The key is that the player has options. A redundancy of forced carries, or 215 yard uphill approaches for most golfers would smack of poor design and poor shot value for the amatuer. The same course might be considered a "test" for touring pros, are the "shot values" different?

I think the reason that nobody has ever heard a definition of "shot values" is that we hone in on individual shots and try and define their merit on a hole by hole,shot by shot basis, when really it boils down to the variety of shots necessary to score to the players potential or beyond on a great course without being obvious to the player. By that I mean if the player has to hit over water thirty times to finish the round, there is probably little value to that courses architecture and the resulting "menu of available shots" is going to be just as redundant and boring as the architecture.

Shot value, if there is such a thing, is probably closer to the "variety,quirkiness, and routing" that we identify as great architectural features that literally create an options dilemna for players of all abilities throughout the round.

[Mike Nuzzo]

IMHO
I try and keep the empirical and subjective separate.  I think shot value can be expressed as a number, in which case shot value is pretty well defined by the USGA rating system.  There is a good historical introduction in the 2002-2005 course rating system manual I'd be glad to share.
Their shot value is based on the distributed area a bogey or scratch golfer will hit a ball depending on the desired length of shot as it relates to 10 obstacles (topography, fairway width, green target, recoverability and rough, bunkers, ob, water, trees, green surface and psychological factors) taking into account elevation changes and wind.   The ratings don't account for strategy, only length as they only account for forced lay-ups which has a marginal effect at best.
When the treehouse "rates" a course or shot, we take into account strategy, variety, naturalness and the rhythm or flow predominately.  Mike Young's description, for me falls into the strategy category as his thoughts describe relative shot values to advantageous positions versus non-advantageous positions (options or choices).
For me it is much simpler to try and distinguish between shot values and a courses subtler qualities.  The later is much more difficult to define and pretty much the point of GCA.
So if the course is strategic you should wind up with a wide range (or variety) of shot values depending on your execution and shot selections.
But I could be just taking the easy way out.
Mike

[Jeff_Brauer]

I'll add a few random thoughts to keep the discussion going -

My definition would read a lot like Shivas - I guess that's the old Chicago connection....While the flexibility others mention is important, I consider that shot values are for the better player who can both think and execute.  I imagine a friendly competitor who thinks the rising of the sun the next day depends on him making his absolute best score, and looks for every advantage - slope, wind direction, shot pattern, etc. to craft his shot and maximize his chance for success.

In that regard, I think most serious players like the "signals" on shot pattern to align strongly, rather than be mixed, ie, if the wind blows left, the fairway contours drop left to encourage roll on a hook, and the angle of the fairway also bends left, the light bulb goes on in the head saying "By George, I think I'll hit a gentle hook on this shot".  Further planning goes into teeing position, where to aim, , how to avoid disaster, whether to hit high to limit roll (if the cross slope is too great) etc. and then on to (hopefully) successful execution.....

Mixed signals drive good players crazy and that confusion leads to bad shots.  Is confusion a good or a bad shot value?

When some said on another thread that a hole should have limitless multiple options, I sided with Ron Whitten that over the course of a round, each type of shot pattern - to which I would add to Shivas' high spin and roll out shots - ought to be favored a certain number of times.

Mike and Ed mention "options", but after reading the "Art of Golf Design" including Geoff S. essay on temptation, I think that should be worked into any defintion.....often - but not always - enticing you try to do something you deep down know you shouldn't do!

That's why I relate to the idea of bunker depths according to approach, as I believe a 50-50 recovery chance, or perhaps 67-33%, sets up that "dilemma" in the golfers mind.  

Of course, the hazard must be placed so that it is also greater than a 50% chance of being carried.  For example, the "footprint" at Giant's Ridge really only requires a carry of 220 yards from the back tee to gain the distance advantage to go for the green.  At 240 from the back tees, more players would have the option eliminated, and at 260, only Tigeriffic competitors would try it.

I have (to idle away many airport and hotel hours) gone through an academic excerise related to Tom H's mention of the Golf Digest "length, accuracy, and finesse definition" right now.  Balancing these strengths seems ideal.  So what features do that (if we shamelessy assume the stereotypical golfer who completely lacks skill in the other areas)?  Wide fairways and no hazards, carry hazards or deep hazards requiring strength to recover favor length most.  Small greens, narrow fairways and flanking hazards favor accuracy first, finesse second and length last.  Chipping areas, other moderate hazards and heavy green contours favor finesse first, accuracy second, and length last.  And so on.....

I wonder if it would affect my definition of what type of features.  I think I will feature these musings in my next Cyber golf piece.....

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

I could probably think about an answer for days, and whatever I finally write down I'll probably want to change it anyway.  So I'll save myself some time and just jot it down right now.

To me, "Shot Value" is basically a measure of the difficulty of a shot.  But the best shot value is neither the most difficult, and certainly not the easiest shot.  Rather, it is a shot with the perfect balance between "too easy" and "too hard".

Amendments to this definition will surely follow...

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I have that USGA course rating manual for men from about 1991.  No doubt distance factors have increased some... haven't they?

At any rate, I have a question for designers and architects that read the discussion group.  How many of you have these statistics from the manual's charts and tables predominantly in mind for design purposes when designing features relative to the scratch and bogey golfer statistics presented in the manual?  It seems to me that general knowledge of the statistics may be useful, but over attention to them could drive a person nuts when trying to work with what the land offers for design rather than pounding the features into the ground to match the statistical models.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

I do have those statistics in mind, but I don't let them drive me nuts! They are a starting point, one of a number of criteria (number 46 out of 87 according to Jeremy, perhaps a bit higher with me), but not a strict rule!

I usually size greens for the bogey player who will predominate play on any given course, and that distance and accuracy equation probably hasn't changed a bit.  Those stats for green size were based on 2/3 of all 20 handicap (or scratch in another tabulation) players hitting a target of a specific size.  That seems like a reasonable goal to me.  Hey, would you want at least 2/3 of the group in front of you to hit the green, or not?  Perhaps you prefer to stay out there all day long!

Although I've posted this before, I have roughly summarized the USGA chart for the target size (shamelessly rounding for easier "in my head math") for the 20 handicapper according to the slope rating as:

Width - 40% of approach length yards, in feet
Depth - 60% of approach length yards, in feet

i.e. an "average green" for a 100 yard approach is 40 feet wide and 60 deep, for a 150 yard approach, 60X90, and for a 200 yard approach, 80X120.....

Again, these standards are said to be derived from field study, ie watching a gazillion golfers hit shots to typical holes, in all kinds of conditions.  Nonetheless, I often adjust each green size using common sense - like making it wider in a predominant cross wind hole, for instance....

For scratch players, the width and depth is about 33-35%, ie a 210 yard shot requires a 70X70 target.

For the superintendents doing the maintenance math out there, you will probably note that the smaller sizes for scratch players don't begin to give enough useable cup space, another good reason to design for the bogey player!  

I often size the big middle of the green to bogey standards, and size the Sunday pin location to scratch standards, accomplishing the best (I hope) of all worlds.  That is, of course, unless I decide just to do a small, single target green to instill the fear of God in all, or a huge triple tier green for the "green within a green" concept.  I do each once in a while, and also throw in the occaisional "conversation piece" green that makes you go "huh?"

What's interesting is that while the green sizes vary, the shot value, if defined as some have here, relates to the difficulty of the shot, is exactly the same!  There is a linear relationship to room required for hitting a 200 yard shot versus a 100 yard shot 2% off line, and it is exactly proportional to distance, according to the usga.  

As an architect, I have no problem asking the player to hit, say, one long approach with more accuracy than "average" and one with less, if it fits in with the hole.  Same with short irons, par 3,4, and 5 holes, etc.  But generally, most targets should be big enough that most players can hit it with reasonable consistency, or the course will develop a reputation for being unfair.  As Jeremy says, most shots should probably be in the "average" category, if for no other reason to make the easy and hard ones stand out!

As you say, the key is not to force this on the topography.  If I find a long, narrow green site, this immediately suggests a green that places a premium on direction, as it will probably be narrower, but perhaps a bit longer, than USGA stats say they "should be."  A large open area obviously suggests a bigger green than normal, etc.  From time to time, a contoured green site presents the opportunity to do something really unusual and natural, and those usually turn into the concept, or conversation piece greens.....

For most average sites, and most courses, form should follow function, and if the green's function is to recieve a long iron shot, it should be designed to do this.  In this case, size matters!  You have to start somewhere, and if you start with size, which is easy to grasp, you adjust other details.  If you start the green design with using a particular natural feature, you adjust other details, plus size, to match whatever your most important criteria is.

For any given green site, hundreds of architects could give you literally hundreds of design options that accomplish this in different ways, so there is no formula.  But, simple physics and experience dictate the green should be sized roughly in proportion to its intended function, and there is no good reason it shouldn't be, IMHO.

BTW, the USGA says 32 yards is about the mimimum a scratch player can consistently hit a fairway, although their championships often feature narrower fairways!  Regardless, this suggests to me that a fairway ought to be at least 16 yards wider than the minimum, or about 48 yards to encourage play to either side of a fairway for strategic value! But, that's another topic!

[A_Clay_Man]

There seems to be a consensus here that 'shot values' are more noticable or important to good players.
Well I have to stick up for us inept enthusiasts. We find ourselves in some precarious spots and sometimes we execute better than Tiger could've or would've from that same spot. Not because we are talented but because our minds eye sees all and knows that if I do this this and that, the ball should go here there and down, at the end. And by golly its rare but it happens.
And the best part is it keeps us coming back.

As it relates to course architecture I consider any course with more than a handful of level lies to be less challenging than it should would or could be. At Spyglass, Pebble, and Pinon, what makes these courses have great shot values are the circumstances we're put in i.e. lie, wind and elevation changes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

You are nicely ammending Shivas' definition to include not different shot types, but shots from different types of lies!

I like it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeremy Glenn,

I agree with you.

But, I may amend my opinion later  

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

I agree with you.

Oh my God!!!

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

jeez, Shivas, you just have to realize that there are smarter guys than me out there!  Also, more careful readers

Given my lack of grey matter, I missed your intent on ground swales.  

Overall, with the mechanics of hitting every iron just about the same these days, I think the idea of crafting a high hook, low fade, etc. and a few of those happen to be the same club, its still shot values.

Its still nice to have a mix of long irons, mid and short, etc.  It seems like the long irons can only be guaranteed on shorter fives and long threes.

For that matter, as you say, any formula does require some whopper assumptions about tee shot consistency, that are in fact bigger lies than any politician could ever tell.  I know Doak overcomes this with a more random scattering of hazards than most architects would attempt, which is one good way.  Another is to take you best guess as to may happen for better players and hope it all  works out okay for most individual rounds.

[BillV (Guest)]

Shot values exist on a continuim from just slop any old thing in there to GOLF SHOT! ?

A tree lined claustrophobic hole requiring a single solution such as is required at an overgrown Harbour Town does not, however, constitute high shot values.  

Fun over all.   Satisfaction, creativity and options all abound in shot values.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

On an individual level, could "shot value" be determined by analyzing the requirements for executing a particular shot ?

Trajectory, ball flight, and distance ?

[TEPaul]

Certainly the term "shot value" is a hard to define one for anyone in a general sense! How can there ever be a general or unified consensus of the value of a particular shot given the vast spectrum of golf talent?

I've always thought given that problem of consensus definition that the best description of "shot value" can be found in C&W's tome as "a somewhat mysterious term". But C&W cites Killian and Nugent anyway as having described it quite well as "a reflection of what the hole (shot) demands of the golfer and the relative reward or punishment it metes out for good and bad shots."

Obviously what's a shot of high value for a 20 handicapper is not of remotely equal value to a Tiger Woods. And a shot of high value to Tiger would likely be extremely lucky to nigh on impossible to the 20 handicapper!

So with that how can there be any consensus of what "shot value" is to the spectrum of golfers without the expectation or the likelihood of the loss of a shot or two but certainly the chances of success or failure on any particular shot?

Ed Baker said that Rich Goodale has professed many times that EVERY golf course is strategic and EVERY shot has merit and therefore it should follow that "shot value" should be distinct and personal and therefore indefinable as it's all subjective. How could it possibly be otherwise?

I feel I've never completely understood where Rich is coming from on the subject of architecture but maybe when he returns from vacation he can edify me a bit more in the context of this subject of "shot value".

If Ed is saying accurately what Rich is then maybe I do understand Rich on this--and his ideas on architecture generally. But if Rich is saying that EVERY golf course has equal quantitative and qualitative strategic value and EVERY shot has equal qualitative or quantitative merit to a Tiger Woods, for instance, I would say that's patently ridiculous. And relatively speaking the same would apply to a 20 handicapper, for instance--or any other golfer!

Sometimes I worry that Rich is implying that golf architecture is simply not able to be defined in any qualitative or quantitative sense for some reason and therefore should only be played and not taken particularly seriously as a form of art or creativity in design.

I hope he's not saying that. If he is though, for the moment I might say that Rich is focusing too much on any golfer, or on a particular golfer, and too little on particular golf courses and also their particular "shot values".

Obviously golf courses and their particular shots have varying degrees of value but certainly they're vastly different to various golfers. I certainly must be stating the obvious though!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

That is exactly what I'm saying.  

Certainly, the big picture concept of shot values is maddeningly difficult to describe.  Someone would find an exception - a great bunker, or hole, etc. that would "prove the rule" so to speak....When Archie says most great bunkers fall outside of the standard pattern it is because they stick out in your mind.  I have always felt that all the deep bunkers at PGA West blend together, but if only a few were really deep, those would really stand out.....The question remains that if you did a "tough 18" course, replicating all the worlds hardest holes, would it be a great course?  No.

With all our talk about endless options, its the architects first duty to make sure there is at least one way to play the hole with a reasonable chance of success!  The example of a 465 yd par 4 with an 18 yard fairway is a good case in point.  I see far too many holes where an architect - or non architect, doesn't understand what is acheivable by many, and designs an unplayable hole.

My point is that if I am considering a golf hole, let's say that long par 4, the physics of the shot requirement - ie stance, wind, uphill, downhill, angle of target and so on should be checked to make sure a reasonable shot by a fairly proficient golfer can attain the fairway or green, and I agree with the USGA idea of 2 out of 3.

On that long par 4, if the fairway was 18 yards, and it had a cross slope, it would have to be widened or flattened.  If that long iron approach was an uphill shot off a downhill lie, I would expect pure phyics to reduce backspin, and the green would be lengthened and a clear frontal approach would be left, both to give golfers a reasonable chance to hold the green somehow. If it was from a sidehill lie, if I could, I would angle the green a bit to accomodate the flight pattern as you suggest.  Then I would look for some options, temptations, etc.

I worked for Killian and Nugent, and heard the definition of "metes out in proportion to the shot", but it never went any  deeper than that.  Most people think shot values are very intuitive, but my professors always taught me that the worst designs are intuitive - the best result from careful study of the acutal "problem" you are trying to solve.  Standing in the fairway, designing a particular bunker, I doubt any one seriously engaged in designing a golf course would say, "Well anything goes" as that implies it doesn't matter what you design.  I disagree.

As Mike Nuzzo says, the slope system really measures difficulty, and I think shot values do get into more than that.  The aspects of temptation, uncertainty, and pure joy/desperation are the more non numerical aspects of it.  I suspect that we could never get broad agreement on how much of each of those emotional elements should go into the "ideal" course, and in fact, probably want different amounts in each course we play.

But, as I understood your original fairway bunker depth post, you were trying to quantify (which you would need to do, even if designing just one bunker) what type of bunker and in what location would likely inspire those types of emotions.

I think the architect should give those things deep thought.  If he happens to give it deep thought more than two seconds in advance of designing it, and those thoughts are based on a career of experience, and knowledge of how golfers play, does that make it formula?  At what point do we call a concept - like avoiding playing into the rising or setting sun as much as possible, formula, as opposed to plain common sense?

Perhaps its the German in me, but I often "noodle" on more scientific or at least definite, ideas on shot values.  Of couse, I could be wrong! In fact, I often go back and tell myself I WAS wrong, and am fairly certain I will continue to do so well into the future.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()