[John Kirk]

A few months ago an acquaintance of mine played Old Macdonald.  He's a great player, a multiple club champion at Pumpkin Ridge who made it to the round of 16 at the U.S. Mid-Am a few years ago.  I asked if he liked Old Macdonald.  He replied, "No. The course doesn't reward good shotmaking."  I can't remember whether he shot a good score on a bad ball striking day, or a poor score though he was swinging well.  I believe it was the former.

I believe the comment "The course does not reward good shotmaking" is invalid.  There are golf holes which sometimes reward poor shotmaking.  There are courses where luck plays a greater role in shot results and overall score, but I challenge the group to identify a golf hole that does not reward a good shot.

The golf course that consistently rewards the best shotmaking would be the least interesting course.  It would simply be a collection of symmetrical golf holes of different lengths with virtually no hazards.  Perhaps a donut shaped sand hazard or two around circular greens offers a perfectly fair challenge, and helps identify the best shotmaker.  The course should also test the player's ability to hit uneven lies and curving putts, maybe a blind shot or two.  But as a rule, the ideal course for evaluating ability will be mundane, symmetrical, and primarily flat.

Name a golf hole, or a golf hole design, that does not reward good shotmaking.  Please explain why.

[Mike Benham]

Let's not confuse "shotmaking" with "hitting it at the flag".   Perhaps the mindset of the top golfers is such that if they are swinging well, that they take aim at the flag on each hole and consider it unrewarding when that shot does not result in a kick-in birdie.

Augusta National is the poster child for shotmaking v hitting at the flag ...

[John Kirk]

Thanks for responding Mike.  I can't watch this thread closely, as I am busy writing other things.  As you know, I am attempting to invalidate the remark.

Augusta National rewards great shotmaking, and is somewhat punitive for anything less than outstanding.

[Ben Sims]

Yeah, what Benham said.

I have never seen a course ever reject a well conceived and creative shot that took the ground into account.  I have seen plenty of shots hit "on the number", perfectly struck at a poor choice of target, be rejected.  

Our country is so obsessed with stroke play.  It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.  This idea that John's friend touches on is the prevailing attitude among many, many golfers out there.  They believe a crisp shot, hit well and at their point of aim should assure them of success, no matter how ill-conceived the idea of the shot was.  How can an architect design for that guy?  It takes all creativity out of the equation.

I love a hole that forces the golfer to think about alternate avenues to the pin.  The Dormie Club hole being posted on right now looks like one of those holes.  Hit a towering wedge right at the pin vs. hitting a sawed off 8 iron up the slope to the top left and see who gets closer.  Or take a hole like Nuzzo's 13th at Wolf Point.  If the pin is anywhere near the back of the green, hitting a shot "on the number" and coming up 2 yards short will likely lead to a 3 putt.  Whereas missing long on purpose means a relatively straight forward up and down, or even chance at birdie.  

I'm amazed that more holes aren't designed this way.  Match play people...match play!

[Sean_A]

I will disagree with John - sort of - if we can accept a standard of a good shot as one which can be hit by anybody - meaning the 18 capper.  There are holes in which there is only one shot to be played.  In my mind, this usually means a great shot.  Good shots are less than great, but should still be accomodated.  Usually, these holes involve wind, but I am not talking about the type where a very unusual wind is its undoing.  Take #7 Rye for instance.  Downwind at 15-20 mph this hole doesn't not reward good shots in the slightest.  It takes a great shot to hold the green - something the vast majority of golfers don't have in them.  There is no way to bounce the ball up without an incredible amount of luck and not enough room long to accomodate the good shot.  Of course, we could alter our perception of "good" and say to be in a poor spot is good compared to the alternatives, but this is hardly good design imo.  I don't think Deal's 4th is as bad as Rye's 7th, but it could certainly be better with more space long.  St Enodoc's 8th is the same - not enough space to accomodate the design in a wind.  The same applies for countless tee shots on 4s & 5s countless courses where wind is a major factor.  I could say the same thing about tightly tree lined courses to a lesser degree eliminating shaped shots off the tee.  We can't even begin to talk about shot making because most types of shots are not possible. 

Ciao

[MikeJones]

John, I think that your friend may just not be a fan of the sometimes random aspect of a course of that nature. Sometimes people get used to playing on courses where the ball pretty much sticks where it lands and cannot adjust their thinking accordingly when a course doesn't reward that kind of golf.

Many golfers really dislike links courses in general for that reason but it's pretty much accepted that links courses and their ilk are a more complete test of shotmaking than most standard inland 'carry fests'.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

Have to disagree about Deal's 4th.  Of course long is a bad place downwind (it isn't good in any circumstances I can imagine) to be but there is the option of playing a shot so that your miss is short right, which gives a chance of getting up and down.  There's no miss short at Rye on the 7th.  It's an impossible hole downwind.

[Tom Yost]

I think there may be a mindset that a "good shot" that works on a typical modern style layout should work on every type of golf course.  On some courses, a "good shot" is not always the "right shot" and the key is understanding and adapting to the difference.

[Matthew Sander]

Perhaps a more apt quote to describe a course like OM would be, "The course doesn't reward a poorly conceived shot" or "the course does reward a creatively conceived shot executed well". In the case of OM, a poorly conceived shot is one which doesn't take into account the non traditional features (at least as compared to most American courses) that influence the outcome of the shot. It has already been said in this thread, but such course's are not designed for point and shoot golf.

[Andy Troeger]

I think its fair to say that often times good players like courses that separate them from their weaker counterpoints, which is exactly the opposite viewpoint of many here that prefer courses that bring them closer together. A good course for some is a test of their ability. I can't speak to the courses being mentioned, but I'm not surprised that they wouldn't necessarily be "tests of golf" as much as whimiscal adventure types of places.

I also see nothing wrong with wanting to keep score. While one doesn't have to play competitively, I certainly don't see an issue with those that do and stroke play is the dominant method in golf today.

[JMEvensky]

Our country is so obsessed with stroke play.  It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.  

Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.

I'm with KBM on this one.If you're not keeping score,you're just practicing.

The guy who made the original "shotmaking" comment certainly understands match play.Final 16 in the Mid Am and multiple times club champion means that he gets match play better than most.

[Mark Pearce]

Our country is so obsessed with stroke play.  It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.  

Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.

And Ben then drew a conclusion about the effect of the stroke play fixation which wasn't justified either.  It doesn't matter what game you are playing, a poorly conceived shot well played is a poor shot whatever the format.

[Tim Martin]

The last thing I knew good shotmaking is determined by the result. Yes occasionally luck will factor in both good and bad but mostly the result is determined by creativity and execution. Sounds to me like the player in question had a bad day and his ego was bruised. 

[Jerry Kluger]

I would suggest that the extremely large greens are a factor in his opinion.  Really good golfers believe that if they hit a green in regulation they should not 3 putt and if anything, they should have a chance at birdie. The greens are so big at OM that perhaps he is not realizing that hitting the green in regulation doesn't mean that he has necessarily hit a good shot.  You can easily 3 or 4 putt there so you might think that you hit good shots that day because you hit so many greens but your score is not so good because of all the putts you took. A good shot not only winds up on the green but it is within a reasonable distance of the hole.   

[Carl Rogers]

Isn't it self evident that under different playing and turf conditions, "Good Shotmaking" takes on different defintions?

[Ken Fry]

I had a similiar incident where a past employer of mine and a decent player spoke how much he disliked Old Macdonald.  I buy into the fact that hitting to another area to have the ball react and ultimately end at the final target is fun.  I know he's not the kind of player to find enjoyment in that.  Does the stree of execution win out over strategy and creativity?  For some, yes.

One course that did pop to mind for me is Royal St. George's.  Each time the Open gets played there, we see guys on some holes not finding fairways off the tee no matter where the tee shot is placed.  Having crowned fairways to shrug some shots off line is fine, but doesn't RSG go to an extreme??

Ken

[Terry Lavin]

I've heard different variations on this theme from a bunch of low handicappers who are used to being able to predict, with unerring accuracy, where their ball will wind up in the fairway or on the green, when it is still in the air.  They generally are saying that it will wind up pretty much where it landed, with room to roll out.  They aren't used to playing courses where the "run-out" can take the ball down nooks and crannies that will funnel it into tight spots, bad lies or hazards.  They aren't accustomed to hitting the front of the green, having the ball catch a cleft that pulls it left off the green, down a hill to the side of the green, leaving them a 60 yard shot to the hole.  You'll see this sort of shot from time to time at places like Old MacDonald and Chambers Bay.  I talked with Peter Uhlein a couple weeks after he won at Chambers Bay and he was still somewhat tormented by some of the bad results that players wound up with after "good" shots.  (He said he liked the golf course and loved the experience, but I could tell that he wouldn't really relish playing that style of golf on a regular basis.)  Golf courses that emphasize the ground game can often dramatically alter the strategy that a player has in his head standing over the golf ball because he has to really focus on what will happen once the ball hits the ground.  That can become a primary thought.  On most tournament courses, it's not even a secondary thought, more like a tertiary concept.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Not rewarding good shotmaking usually means shots are uncomfortable for the execution driven player and/or its too easy for the high handicapper to play to his index.

My experience is Doak courses actually require a player to hit "shots" instead of the get a yardage, pull a club approach. Good courses require players to think about things like trajectory and ground influences as opposed to just throwing darts.

What John's friend is probably saying is OM is too easy for a 15 to break 90 but too hard for the scratch to shoot par.

[Terry Lavin]

What John's friend is probably saying is OM is too easy for a 15 to break 90 but too hard for the scratch to shoot par.

Ding ding ding.

[Ed Oden]

It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing.  It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad.  Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score.  It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question.  At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course?  For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac.  I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses.  More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.

[John Kirk]

Our country is so obsessed with stroke play.  It's one of the most disheartening trends in America re: golf today.  

Why? I don't understand this attitude. I have played since age 8 and typically keep my score. For the most part I would say golf has always been one of the greatest pleasures of my life...whether I played stroke or match. Keeping count is one way for me to measure how I did. I wouldn't say it is a trend, I would say keeping score has been the way most American golfers have played the game since its beginnings here.

I'm also with Kelly here.  Challenging oneself to get around in the fewest strokes requires mental rigor.

I believe the comment came on a day when my friend Jim shot 73 with a "C+" level of execution.

Courses that concave playing surfaces that consistently gather the ball, such as a punchbowl green, negate a shotmaker's advantage.  Also, some complex courses should require a learning curve, where the player's knowledge of the proper shot to attempt increases with experience.  Among the courses in my universe, both Stone Eagle and Kingsley were courses that took time to figure out.  A good example of the learning curve is the Eden (#2) at Old Macdonald, where the hole plays very long for the yardage, or the Ocean (#7), where you'd have to play a number of times to figure out where to miss your approach.

I also find that outstanding players like my friend Jim have less difficulty playing a complex course for the first time.  Robbie Deruntz came to Stone Eagle and shot 1 under the first time around.  He's real good.

[Mac Plumart]

Seems to me this is Crane/Behr all over again.  And throw in Nuzzo's Challenge-centric vs. Fun/Adventure seeking golfer...and you've got it.

I've heard golfers rave about Old Mac and I've heard others who've dislike it.  It isn't hard for me to discern which camp each of these guys are in.  

In my mind, it isn't that the course is good or bad...it is rather which type of golfer it appeals to.  

[John Kirk]

It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing.  It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad.  Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score.  It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question.  At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course?  For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac.  I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses.  More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.

That's right, Ed.  My initial post is a bit opaque, though I do suggest that is the case.

And I agree with your assessment.  He had a lucky day.  In my opinion, Old Macdonald is a pretty tough golf course (back tees especially) if you're not playing well.

[Alex Miller]

It seems to me the comments so far are focusing on the wrong thing.  It doesn't sound like this is a case where a good golfer is ticked off because well struck shots turned out bad.  Rather, John said he thought his friend had a bad ballstriking day but still posted a good score.  It is the opposite concern of that described in most of the replies and, in my opinion, a far more interesting question.  At what point does a failure to punish bad shots reflect poorly on a course?  For what it's worth, I do not believe this is a concern at Old Mac.  I suspect John's friend just had one of those blessed days when good fortune smiled on all his misses.  More likely than not, tempting fate again with similar poor play won't be treated as kindly.

Agreed 100%. The problem is not with the course, but with the premise. It's far more likely a course doesn't punish bad shots than not rewarding good shots.

[Peter Pallotta]

J - another good thread by you.  I think Ed Oden's comment/approach to the topic is a good one.  I would opine that, since the interaction with a golf course/architecture is a subjective experience, your friend's comments are valid -- for him. Can we draw any objective value out of them? I don't know. I assume from what you and Ed and others have said here and elsewhere the answer is no.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()