[Jeff_Brauer]

Going for broke by extending another thread, but how many architects use template strategies?


Years ago, I authored a piece for one of Paul Daley's early books on tee shot strategies.  While there may be hundreds of slight variations on each, I postulated that (assuming the driver is the club) there are only a few basic ways you can challenge golfers with tee shot landing zone hazards.  You can ask them to carry them, skirt them laterally, or stay short of them, although certain combos are stronger to suggest they also curve a tee shot around the short one to avoid the long one. 


Variations include pinching on both sides for accuracy, staggering them on both sides (assuming at least a gentle dogleg, you can go outside-inside-outside, or inside-outside-inside) with 3 or 4 bunkers/hazard, etc.  Of course, depending on the golfer, you are probably really just setting up a one side hazard for that length,  or the aforementioned preferred curve. 


Or, you can have no hazards, contours as hazards (both cross slope you can use and a combo of flat and more rumpled areas suggesting the best landing spot), a center bunker, or a sort of random pockmarked battlefield of hazards.  I consider alternate fairways as a separate tee shot concept, as well as a forced curve around a tree.  Add those up,  and I think it came out to 14 basic tee shot challenges. I figure you could use each one once on either side of the few (i.e., left or right to challenge different golfers)( MY point in the long winded exercise was to show that there is really no reason for a golf course to have 14 fw with lateral bunkers at the LZ.


Of course, there may be more, but I doubt I would use them willingly, like forced carries vs. alternate carries, and of course, the occasional forced layup, although, forcing the golfer to do anything, rather than giving them the choice is an inferior strategy, so why use them, etc.


As I mentioned in the template thread, combining any one of these with a similar amount of combinations of approach shot strategies or shot requirements/suggestive patterns, and you come up with a lot of strategic options. That said, it doesn't take long to rule some of those out, i.e., forced carry tee shot combined with a forced carry approach shot makes little sense to me and would only be used if forced upon me by some environmental constraints. 


In the end, I think each gca, after a while, figures out which shot patterns work best, on which kind of hole and in which kind of wind.  For instance, while not all of my cape holes actually do this, it logically seems to me that using them in predominantly downwind tee shots makes more sense than into the wind, simply because it makes it more tempting to take the sucker punch, as the basic idea intends.  Into the wind, most golfers will just steer well clear. Second best is the wind blowing to the hazard, and the last best is wind blowing away from the hazard, forcing golfers to aim out over the water and hope the wind keeps blowing, which is too scary for most.


There can be some philosophical questions - does a reachable par 5 need a narrow pinched fw zone, or should it be wide to make a big drive required more attractive (and thus, more susceptible to the golfer taking the sucker punch) Each par 5 will get its own consideration in design, including comparing it to the other par 5 holes, and the tee shot immediately before and after (i.e., would we want two pinched LZ's in a row?)

[/size]How often would I use a pinched fw LZ on a long par 4?[size=78%][/size]  [size=78%]Never? On a tournament course? Only on the closing holes? Only on a shorter par 4's where a layup that yields a decent length approach a real option?


In the end, I sort of like Fazio's quote - there are no rules, but most of us certainly develop preferences.


Anyone (golfers or archies) have their own preferred strategies they don't mind seeing course after course because they are inherently good?

[Matt MacIver]

I like flat vs hanging lies from the fairway relative to the days’ pin placement, weather, my swing etc. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,


Could you explain a bit more?  I have to say as an architect, I couldn't rely on placing a flat hanging lie in any one position.  I get a cross slope fw, and ideally it helps almost any tee shot with the approach, i.e., a hook lie to a left pin, rather than a strong hook lie to a right side pin.  (For righties)  And, then, that cross slope would have to be just steep enough to be considered a hanging lie, but not so steep as to carom tee shots off the fw, usually something under 10%, and I'm not sure that is "hanging" but merely side hill.


Tripp Davis did a hole at the Tribute in far north Dallas where the entire fw was covered with slightly softer to mow as fw chocolate drop mounds.  No matter where you hit it, you faced a wedge from an awkward lie (rare that your feet and the ball on the sam plane) to the green.  I liked it, and keep it in my hip pocket as a neat idea to try somewhere.

[Tom_Doak]

The best quote ever about tee shot strategies came from Bobby Jones:


"There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one.  One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment on a bad shot, to place its perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble which will demand the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering.  The other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the first.  The reward may be of any nature, but it is most commonly one of four -- a better view of the green, an easier angle from which to attack a slope, an open approach past guarding hazards, or even a better run to the tee shot itself.  But the elimination of purely punitive hazards provides an opportunity for the player to retrieve his situation by an exceptional second shot."


[I wish I could write that well.]


The problem with templates is that nearly all of them seem to emphasize a combination of hazards, as you did.  That's one reason I think that using a template idea here and there is fine, but using a bunch of them on the same course is overkill.

[Michael Moore]

"or even a better run to the tee shot itself"
 
People here and short-hitting tour players have been complaining about speed slots and turbo boosts at a certain distance, but far more interesting was the brief mention by Kyle Harris and Tom Doak about the converse at Streamsong Blue - slopes that take an off-line or sideways-spinning tee ball and carry them very far away to a bad place.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The best quote ever about tee shot strategies came from Bobby Jones:


"There are two ways of widening the gap between a good tee shot and a bad one.  One is to inflict a severe and immediate punishment on a bad shot, to place its perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble which will demand the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering.  The other is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simpler in proportion to the excellence of the first.  The reward may be of any nature, but it is most commonly one of four -- a better view of the green, an easier angle from which to attack a slope, an open approach past guarding hazards, or even a better run to the tee shot itself.  But the elimination of purely punitive hazards provides an opportunity for the player to retrieve his situation by an exceptional second shot."


[I wish I could write that well.]


The problem with templates is that nearly all of them seem to emphasize a combination of hazards, as you did.  That's one reason I think that using a template idea here and there is fine, but using a bunch of them on the same course is overkill.

Jones' quote implies the relationship between shots, except for the possibility of a longer running tee shot, in which case I presume distance is its own reward.  He doesn't mention a level lie, for instance, but I think that is one.  And while admitting, as I would, that the variation in reward is nearly infinite, he also says there are three main ways to author reward that are easier second shots.


It strikes me that avoiding frontal hazards eventually became the most discussed, whereas tour pros I know think playing direction into an uphill green slope is pretty important.


I guess my main question is why thinking in combinations of shots, and hazards that set those up is a problem?

[Tom_Doak]

I guess my main question is why thinking in combinations of shots, and hazards that set those up is a problem?

It's not a problem, but you kept talking about hazards instead of just position.  Most pro golfers think that you should get one of those rewards Jones mentioned after you carry a bunker [or, for some of the more enlightened, go near it], but cashing in those rewards as Jones described them does not necessarily require a hazard at all.  At Augusta, for example, you get an advantage for hitting a hook at #10, and it's sometimes better on #11 to play left off the tee so you can play away from the pond down at the green, but he felt no need to add bunkers to make those strategies harder.  The reward is for the guy who understands, and plays appropriately.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, I did include cross slopes and other contours as one type of fw hazard, so I had it generally covered.  And I mentioned combination of shots, but you are correct, position is the ultimate goal of strategy, and hazards, slopes, wind, etc. merely set up a certain way to get there, whether in the FW, or just around the green, which in hockey would be called a delayed penalty.  Wind wrote that to the purist, a single greenside bunker should establish the strategy of the hole.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff -
I must be misunderstanding your post and this thread (and much else), because I've always thought that the use of template strategies is the one thing that all good golf course architects have in common, and precisely that which makes all their designs much more similar to one another than different. It's the reason you and Mackenzie and Tom D and Nicklaus and Dye and C&C and Fazio all design interesting and playable golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,


I agree.  This is sort of a reaction to TD's fairly adamant discussions that it's not a good idea.  Me (and I think Mark Fine) have really been arguing that consciously or not, we all use our experience as players and designers to limit the universe of possible design ideas for any given hole down to a more manageable hundred, or maybe only a couple of dozen, or so!  (Even if we don't admit it publicly)


That said, I think we are still batting around those two dozen ideas, which is basically TD's definition of non-template, i.e., don't consider just one idea for any given hole.

[Peter Pallotta]

J -
I find it easier to talk about when I use the term 'principle' instead of 'template'. From Tom's Bobby Jones example: he had a fundamental principle, ie avoid the use of purely punitive hazards, and then he had (at least) 4 actualized principles, as outlined in that quote. It's those principles that make for good golf, always; it's how varied and imaginative and original a use of those principles a given architect makes that separate him from other architects

[Michael Felton]

In the end, I think each gca, after a while, figures out which shot patterns work best, on which kind of hole and in which kind of wind.  For instance, while not all of my cape holes actually do this, it logically seems to me that using them in predominantly downwind tee shots makes more sense than into the wind, simply because it makes it more tempting to take the sucker punch, as the basic idea intends.  Into the wind, most golfers will just steer well clear. Second best is the wind blowing to the hazard, and the last best is wind blowing away from the hazard, forcing golfers to aim out over the water and hope the wind keeps blowing, which is too scary for most.

As a player, the wind blowing away from the hazard is the one most likely to make me take it on. If the hazard is on the right and the wind is from the right, I can aim it down the middle of the fairway and hit my normal shot. If it goes straight, the wind will bring it to the left half and if I hit my cut, then the wind will hold it. If the hazard is on the left, then I'll aim it left edge and let the wind bring it back. Even if the wind dies, it's pretty unusual for me to miss left of where I'm aiming, so I'm still in the clear. If the wind is blowing towards the hazard and it's on the right, that doesn't really give me a safe place to aim it and still be sure of hitting it somewhere safe(ish).


What I like as far as "strategies" is holes where you have to decide where to take on the shots. Take TOC for example, most of the holes there if you challenge the right side, you have better options for your approach. If you play safe and play left, you have substantially harder approach shots. A hole like 16 at Pine Valley I don't think I'd ever tire of. You've got that cavernous bunker to play over. If you play left over the short carry, you have the lake sitting right behind the green on your approach and that's scary. If you take it more aggressive off the tee, you get to play your approach with the water alongside, rather than behind and it's much easier to go at the flag.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,Do you consider "template strategies" to be 3 dimensional.  Green templates excluded...

[Sean_A]

I think a few different strategies have been not been mentioned, both of which I like. They aren't templates though. They boil down to the decision of taking the length offered or not. One choice isn't necessarily better than the other, but each choice involves a sacrifice.

1. Drive the ball longer, but then have a severe uphill approach. Could lay up and have a longer, but level approach. Of course there is the possibility of the dreaded downhill lie to uphill green if either choice isn't executed well. Ross used this strategy a ton. Modern equipment has messed up a load of these holes.

2. Drive the ball longer, but have a blind approach. I think course knowledge can be a particularly aid in this case. I see blind approach results a lot from left or right tee shots, but not many for length unless it is hit the ball too short and it will be blind.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am not really sure if I use templates or not.


I tend to extract bits that fit for some holes and in other situations just fit holes that look good naturally. I don't care if I have six par 4 holes on the trot or have equal pars for each time. I try not to have back to back par 3 holes or start with them and even try to get the first one as late as I can into the round but overall I think the land is more the decision maker.


I like the Booby Jones principle that a good drive rewards an easier second shot. I like to have an easier side to miss on and a more difficult side to miss.


Can't say I really like a lot of template stuff especially Redans which most people seem to hate. Variety is the key of course so over 18 holes I try and vary the tilts, the sand bunkering, the grass bunkering.


The sort of things I design are often new courses or changes to existing with the influence on how it is maintained, so my thought patterns are stronger towards ... how the machinery will cut, how the irrigation will distribute the water, how the golfers will enter and exit the green so not to create concentrated traffic problems, how the drainage works.


Strategically I like to just have my own influence over things rather than be a copycat, but I suspect in real truth I do copy and bastardise things.

[Jim Sherma]

One aspect of strategy that I don't see mentioned here is slope in the landing zone relative to slope of the green. A George Fazio course I play frequently (Hershey East) has some great examples of this being a strategic concern, the 12th being my favorite. The right 2/3's of the fairway leaves a hook lie, not severe, but enough to make it difficult to hold a cut off of. The left 1/3 is flat tending to a cut lie as you get to the rough and a bunker at the slight dogleg. The key to the hole is that there is a false side on the left of the green that feeds any over-drawn ball off the green (a large bunker front right moves your eye left as well). Essentially, less than a well placed drive leaves you a hook lie to a green that is not receptive to that shot shape.


I find this to be a wonderful use of cross purpose slopes that really test better players. Of course most players have no idea why hitting the right center of the fairway is anything other than a good shot and tend to not appreciate the hole or the course. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,


Good point, and related to Mike's question of whether I see hazards and what not in 3D. 


It is fashionable (and sometimes even true) to believe that working on plans negates 3D thinking, i.e., using slopes in design as a strategy.  I have experienced it, and my mentors always cautioned against thinking something in airplane view worked well on the ground.  That said, there was a period when many architects (I start the blame with JN, but that is open for debate) really did try to take the contours out of fw design, where possible.  Probably, in the name of "fairness" and "receptivity." 


Starting sometime in the 1970's perhaps, the idea that architects only used artificial hazards when a natural one wasn't available morphed into putting sand hazards everywhere.  Hey, RTJ and Wilson were basically limiting their palettes to sand bunkers, so maybe it was earlier than that when earthmoving got relatively cheap.  And, there were enough negative examples, like Cherry Hills 18th once having acceptable cross slope (when fw were cut over an inch high) that now repelled even good shots into the lake at cuts less than half an inch.


Using cross slopes is one of the reasons I take digital levels out to projects to measure what % slope will hold shots on the fairway so you can use them as strategic elements.  But, as the example above shows, you have to be conservative.  You don't know that fw won't continue to get faster, and even then, you have to design for the driest they may be.  Given the predicted reduction in irrigation for golf courses, that gets pretty flat.

[Bret Lawrence]

I think a few different strategies have been not been mentioned, both of which I like. They aren't templates though. They boil down to the decision of taking the length offered or not. One choice isn't necessarily better than the other, but each choice involves a sacrifice.

1. Drive the ball longer, but then have a severe uphill approach. Could lay up and have a longer, but level approach. Of course there is the possibility of the dreaded downhill lie to uphill green if either choice isn't executed well. Ross used this strategy a ton. Modern equipment has messed up a load of these holes.

2. Drive the ball longer, but have a blind approach. I think course knowledge can be a particularly aid in this case. I see blind approach results a lot from left or right tee shots, but not many for length unless it is hit the ball too short and it will be blind.

Ciao

Sean,


I agree it’s nice to have one or two of these types of holes to vary the strategy.  I think Yale does a great job with varying strategies.  Some holes ask you to hit directly at the flag, some holes they ask you to play away from the flag, several ask for specific shot types and others like the 14th ask you to make a decision on how you want to play the hole.  The longer you hit your tee shot the more the green stands up and the putting surface becomes blind or semi blind.  Much like the hole you described above.  If you lay back you have a nice clear look at the green, but if you don’t hit it just right you may have a slightly down hill lie to that raised green surface. 


Yale also has holes like 4 and 18, which to me seem more philosophical than strategic.  A great drive isn’t always rewarded. Sometimes the problems continue even with a well-placed drive and you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evils off of the tee. The holes can be played many ways and every time you play the hole, you aren’t quite sure you approached it properly. 


Yale mixes up the different strategies very nicely.  They don’t rely too heavily on one specific strategy and that is what keeps my interest piqued every time I play there.


Bret

[Tim Martin]

I think a few different strategies have been not been mentioned, both of which I like. They aren't templates though. They boil down to the decision of taking the length offered or not. One choice isn't necessarily better than the other, but each choice involves a sacrifice.

1. Drive the ball longer, but then have a severe uphill approach. Could lay up and have a longer, but level approach. Of course there is the possibility of the dreaded downhill lie to uphill green if either choice isn't executed well. Ross used this strategy a ton. Modern equipment has messed up a load of these holes.

2. Drive the ball longer, but have a blind approach. I think course knowledge can be a particularly aid in this case. I see blind approach results a lot from left or right tee shots, but not many for length unless it is hit the ball too short and it will be blind.

Ciao

Sean,


I agree it’s nice to have one or two of these types of holes to vary the strategy.  I think Yale does a great job with varying strategies.  Some holes ask you to hit directly at the flag, some holes they ask you to play away from the flag, several ask for specific shot types and others like the 14th ask you to make a decision on how you want to play the hole.  The longer you hit your tee shot the more the green stands up and the putting surface becomes blind or semi blind.  Much like the hole you described above.  If you lay back you have a nice clear look at the green, but if you don’t hit it just right you may have a slightly down hill lie to that raised green surface. 


Yale also has holes like 4 and 18, which to me seem more philosophical than strategic.  A great drive isn’t always rewarded. Sometimes the problems continue even with a well-placed drive and you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evils off of the tee. The holes can be played many ways and every time you play the hole, you aren’t quite sure you approached it properly. 


Yale mixes up the different strategies very nicely.  They don’t rely too heavily on one specific strategy and that is what keeps my interest piqued every time I play there.


Bret

Bret-Back before the lower fairway was reestablished on 18 I would always try to play my second up to the apex of the hill leaving a roughly 170 third. Now depending on where you are off the drive the lower fairway maybe the preferred play.

[Paul Rudovsky]

One of the most unique set of driving challenges I have ever seen was at Minneapolis Golf Club...originally designed by Willie Park and then later renovated by Donald Ross.  Played it just 1x (in 2015) on a beautiful but windy day. 


The course is built on land that is really rolling...and many of the fairways are laid out with the ridges crossing the fairways...but not at 90 degrees...usually more like 60 degrees.  The fairways at least back then were fairly wide (but frankly lined with trees too much IMO).  What I found fascinating is how much you had to think and calculate the proper line to take off the tee on each hole (such calculations complicated by the windy conditions).  So to simplify, let's assume no wind and a player who typically carries his driver 225 yards...he is facing a hole with a carry of 225 to the top of the crest in the center of the fairway, 205 yards down the right side and 245 yards down the left side.  If he hits it down the right side he will carry the crest and bound forward at least 30 yards...it he hits it down the center he might hit the top of the crest and who knows how the ball reacts, and if he hits it down the left side he will hit the crest's upslope and come backward at least 30 yards.  So if the hole is 400 yards long, then the difference between hitting down the right and left side might easy be a second shot of either 145 yards or 205 yards (respectively)...with drives hit the same distance...but on very different lines.


The angles and distances change hole to hole and then of course the wind really complicates things.


I am a huge believer that golf is a "chess match" between the architect and the player and I found at Minneapolis GC I had to really really concentrate and think on almost every shot.  I loved it.  Closest I have ever seen to this is at Eastward Ho! on Cape Cod in MA.

[Mungo Park]

Interesting to see your mention of the diagonal ridge, Paul. I think Willie used this strategem with streams and other linear features too, on many courses in the UK. Perceptually they give a false perspective, encouraging the golfer to overdo it off the tee . . . in addition to the strategic challenge. It fooled me anyway.

[Tom_Doak]

The course is built on land that is really rolling...and many of the fairways are laid out with the ridges crossing the fairways...but not at 90 degrees...usually more like 60 degrees.  The fairways at least back then were fairly wide (but frankly lined with trees too much IMO).  What I found fascinating is how much you had to think and calculate the proper line to take off the tee on each hole (such calculations complicated by the windy conditions).  So to simplify, let's assume no wind and a player who typically carries his driver 225 yards...he is facing a hole with a carry of 225 to the top of the crest in the center of the fairway, 205 yards down the right side and 245 yards down the left side.  If he hits it down the right side he will carry the crest and bound forward at least 30 yards...it he hits it down the center he might hit the top of the crest and who knows how the ball reacts, and if he hits it down the left side he will hit the crest's upslope and come backward at least 30 yards.  So if the hole is 400 yards long, then the difference between hitting down the right and left side might easy be a second shot of either 145 yards or 205 yards (respectively)...with drives hit the same distance...but on very different lines.

That's the fourth hole at Bandon Trails [flipped over; the longer carry is on the right], one of my favorite holes at the resort.


I've also got a long essay from Jim Urbina about how the 60 degree angle could revolutionize golf, from about 2005 when he worked for me.  He will be bummed to know he didn't invent the idea!

[Bret Lawrence]

I think a few different strategies have been not been mentioned, both of which I like. They aren't templates though. They boil down to the decision of taking the length offered or not. One choice isn't necessarily better than the other, but each choice involves a sacrifice.

1. Drive the ball longer, but then have a severe uphill approach. Could lay up and have a longer, but level approach. Of course there is the possibility of the dreaded downhill lie to uphill green if either choice isn't executed well. Ross used this strategy a ton. Modern equipment has messed up a load of these holes.

2. Drive the ball longer, but have a blind approach. I think course knowledge can be a particularly aid in this case. I see blind approach results a lot from left or right tee shots, but not many for length unless it is hit the ball too short and it will be blind.

Ciao

Sean,


I agree it’s nice to have one or two of these types of holes to vary the strategy.  I think Yale does a great job with varying strategies.  Some holes ask you to hit directly at the flag, some holes they ask you to play away from the flag, several ask for specific shot types and others like the 14th ask you to make a decision on how you want to play the hole.  The longer you hit your tee shot the more the green stands up and the putting surface becomes blind or semi blind.  Much like the hole you described above.  If you lay back you have a nice clear look at the green, but if you don’t hit it just right you may have a slightly down hill lie to that raised green surface. 


Yale also has holes like 4 and 18, which to me seem more philosophical than strategic.  A great drive isn’t always rewarded. Sometimes the problems continue even with a well-placed drive and you are essentially choosing between the lesser of two evils off of the tee. The holes can be played many ways and every time you play the hole, you aren’t quite sure you approached it properly. 


Yale mixes up the different strategies very nicely.  They don’t rely too heavily on one specific strategy and that is what keeps my interest piqued every time I play there.


Bret

Bret-Back before the lower fairway was reestablished on 18 I would always try to play my second up to the apex of the hill leaving a roughly 170 third. Now depending on where you are off the drive the lower fairway maybe the preferred play.

Tim,


I agree the 18th hole at Yale was very one dimensional before they cleaned up the lower fairway.  Your use of the word “maybe”  solidifies my point.  The lower fairway may be the preferred approach on certain days with certain pins and certain golfers whereas on other days and with different pins the high fairway is the preferred line. There really isn’t a right and wrong way to approach the hole, but you have to be able to execute the shots which ever path you choose.


Bret

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()