[Thomas Dai]

Temptation! Shall I take on a shot or shall I not?
What would be some examples of architectural ploys to encourage player temptation while all the time still preserving an element of uncertainty?
And has modern technology limited the effectiveness of such ploys?
Thoughts?
Atb

[Matt Schoolfield]

I’m planning an essay on this subject based on video game design. You do this by adding luck to the shot.


Lots of people think luck and skill are in opposition to each other. They are not. They are independent vectors of entertainment in games. E.g.:


Bingo: high-luck, low skill


Tic-tac-toe: low-luck, low-skill


Go/Chess: low-luck, high-skill


Poker: high-luck, high-skill


Translation to golf has a lot to do with where luck happens, what type of luck you want to focus on, and how you want luck to impact results.


It’s a looooong conversation, but right now, I think prevailing winds are the best tool. To increase risk, the easiest thing I can think of is forcing players to shape shots into the wind off the tee, or bail out to an inferior position.


Shaping is an extremely difficult thing to control, and shaping into a headwind is a nightmare. Pepper some highly hazardous areas in the obvious miss zones, and you have golfers second guessing their skill on tees.

[John Connolly]

Terrain heterogeneity. The direction of the ball's bounce when it lands is left to chance.

[Ira Fishman]

Terrain heterogeneity. The direction of the ball's bounce when it lands is left to chance.

This strikes me as spot on. But I am trying to think of examples.


NB18? I have not played TOC.
Bandon Trails 14?
Foxy?
Pac Dunes 16?
Lahinch 13?
Southern Pines 11?


Thanks.


Ira

[Joe Zucker]

Terrain heterogeneity. The direction of the ball's bounce when it lands is left to chance.

Why would this enhance temptation?  In my mind it would decrease temptation.  If I know the bounce can be unpredictable, I'm less likely to take on any risk.  The most heterogeneous land I can think of are the unpredictable and rumpled fairways of the UK.  In many cases I give pot bunkers and even wider birth because I don't want a bad bounce to end up somewhere very penal.


My answer to the question is relatively minor penalties that allow for recovery. The most "tempting" course I've ever played is Pinehurst #2.  There are so many shots I want to take on because I know a miss will leave my ball in a hollow with a tough (but possible) recovery shot.  On the other hand, Sawgrass is not very tempting because the risks outweigh the benefits. The tradeoff isn't there.

[John Connolly]

Because the heterogeneity I'm suggesting is not sufficiently discouraging from a distance. It is underestimated by the player so he attempts the shot. Large swales and hollows are not what I'm describing - terrain nuance and camouflaged perspectives are.

[Joe Zucker]

Because the heterogeneity I'm suggesting is not sufficiently discouraging from a distance. It is underestimated by the player so he attempts the shot. Large swales and hallows are not what I'm describing - terrain nuance and camouflaged perspectives are.

Thanks John.  I can see that with your description here.  Do you have any ideal examples that illustrate this in practice?

[Mike_Young]

wide sloping fairway promoting lateral movement..

[Sean_A]

Doglegs where the green can be seen from the tee.

Shorter holes of any par.

Ciao

[Michael Felton]

As a player, I'm a sucker for a cut the corner carry. If there are trees or bunkers to clear that get me closer to the hole, I'm all about it. It matters not really whether the angle is better or if the risk reward payoff is right. If a good shot clears it I'm hitting it.


If you want to make that work for a range of people, then an angled hazard works. 16 at PV is a great example of that. Further right you go the longer the carry and the better the angle. Go as far right as you dare.


Another hole that gets me into trouble is 7 on Bethpage Black. The closer to the trees you go, the more reachable the green is. There's acres of fairway left, but that makes it a three shot hole. I go for close to the trees and frequently end up in them. The penalty for being in there isn't that severe, so it works. But it's totally worth it for that time the ball comes down 5 yards left of them and you wind up with a shot to the green.

[mike_malone]

As a player, I'm a sucker for a cut the corner carry. If there are trees or bunkers to clear that get me closer to the hole, I'm all about it. It matters not really whether the angle is better or if the risk reward payoff is right. If a good shot clears it I'm hitting it.


If you want to make that work for a range of people, then an angled hazard works. 16 at PV is a great example of that. Further right you go the longer the carry and the better the angle. Go as far right as you dare.


Another hole that gets me into trouble is 7 on Bethpage Black. The closer to the trees you go, the more reachable the green is. There's acres of fairway left, but that makes it a three shot hole. I go for close to the trees and frequently end up in them. The penalty for being in there isn't that severe, so it works. But it's totally worth it for that time the ball comes down 5 yards left of them and you wind up with a shot to the green.

ANGLES


Parallel hazards or issues are to be avoided. Angled ones like bunkers, creeks, and greens are taken on.
I have recently developed a disdain for what I call “collection “ hazards. These are at the end of shots and not part of the strategy.

[Ben Sims]

Collecting features on a green. I think alot of people feel like they can take advantage of contours that collect balls on a green and they see it as a green light. Mostly because that’s what they see on TV. I’d argue that’s a bad tactical play.

[Tom_Doak]

Collecting features on a green. I think alot of people feel like they can take advantage of contours that collect balls on a green and they see it as a green light. Mostly because that’s what they see on TV. I’d argue that’s a bad tactical play.

This is a good example.  Really, though, for good players, it is not so much about tempting them to go for it as it is about tempting them to play to what appears to be the "safe" side.  When you defend one side of the green tightly and give them open space opposite, they are more prone to lean to the safe side . . . and any time you get a great player to aim away from the hole, that's a win!

[Ben Sims]

Collecting features on a green. I think alot of people feel like they can take advantage of contours that collect balls on a green and they see it as a green light. Mostly because that’s what they see on TV. I’d argue that’s a bad tactical play.

This is a good example.  Really, though, for good players, it is not so much about tempting them to go for it as it is about tempting them to play to what appears to be the "safe" side.  When you defend one side of the green tightly and give them open space opposite, they are more prone to lean to the safe side . . . and any time you get a great player to aim away from the hole, that's a win!

I understand what you’re saying about getting good players to aim away from the pin.


Is there a way to get them to aim toward the pin but “fool” them? Or is a that more of a penal mindset via tucked locations near hazards and repelling slopes?

[David Harshbarger]

Doglegs where the green can be seen from the tee.

Shorter holes of any par.

Ciao

Sean, are you suggesting that by making clear the line of instinct on the dogleg par 4, you create the pressure to find the line of charm?


At my course our dogleg has a lone pine tree obscuring the green. While that tree has numerous detractors for the usual reasons, I believe that removing it, opening up the line of instinct, would tempt way more players to take on the creek that today they wisely layup to.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()